This article provides a current review of research examining contextual factors that can either foster or hinder employee creativity at the individual, job, group, and organizational level. Specifically, we examine the role of leadership and the use of different human resource practices for developing a work context that is supportive of creativity. Finally, based on our review, we discuss practical implications for managers, propose areas that need further research attention, and highlight possible new directions for future research.

/pdf/what-leaders-need-to-know-a-review-of-social-and-contextual-22hwavkgfq.pdf

What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity

This article presents a meta-analysis of team-level antecedents of creativity and innovation in the workplace. Using a general input-process-output model, the authors examined 15 team-level variables researched in primary studies published over the last 30 years and their relation to creativity and innovation. An exhaustive search of the international innovation literature resulted in a final sample (k) of 104 independent studies. Results revealed that team process variables of support for innovation, vision, task orientation, and external communication displayed the strongest relationships with creativity and innovation (rhos between 0.4 and 0.5). Input variables (i.e., team composition and structure) showed weaker effect sizes. Moderator analyses confirmed that relationships differ substantially depending on measurement method (self-ratings vs. independent ratings of innovation) and measurement level (individual vs. team innovation). Team variables displayed considerably stronger relationships with self-report measures of innovation compared with independent ratings and objective criteria. Team process variables were more strongly related to creativity and innovation measured at the team than the individual level. Implications for future research and pragmatic ramifications for organizational practice are discussed in conclusion.

Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research.

Competing tensions and demands pervade our work lives. Accumulating research examines organizational and leadership approaches to leveraging these tensions. But what about individuals within firms? Although early paradox theory built upon micro-level insights from psychology and philosophy to understand the nature and management of varied competing demands, corresponding empirical studies are rare, offering scarce insights into why some individuals thrive with tensions while others struggle. In response, we contribute to the microfoundations of organizational paradox with a theoretical model and robust measures that help unpack individuals' varied approaches to tensions. Following rigorous scale development in Study 1, including samples from the US, UK, Israel, and China, we test our model in a large firm in the US using quantitative and qualitative methods. We identify resource scarcity (i.e. limited time and funding) as a source of tensions. We also demonstrate that a paradox mindset - the extent to which one is accepting of and energized by tensions - can help individuals leverage them to improve in-role job performance and innovation. Our results highlight paradox mindset as a key to unlocking the potential of everyday tensions.

/pdf/microfoundations-of-organizational-paradox-the-problem-is-3esmiegxmt.pdf

Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem

Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks

The belief that knowledge actually expands when it is shared has been deeply rooted in the mainstream knowledge management literature. Although many organizations and managers expect employees to share their knowledge with their colleagues, this does not always occur. This study aims to use the conservation of resources theory to explain why employees who experience greater time pressure are more likely to engage in knowledge hiding; it further considers how this behavior may be moderated by these employees’ prosocial motivation and perspective taking.,The paper uses quantitative multi-study research design as a combination of two-wave field study among 313 employees at an insurance company and a lab experimental study.,In the field study (Study 1), the authors find that perceived time pressure is positively related to knowledge hiding. Furthermore, this relationship is moderated by prosocial motivation: employees who perceive greater time pressure hide knowledge only when they are low in prosocial motivation. An experiment (Study 2) replicates these findings, and finds that perspective taking mediates the moderating effect of prosocial motivation on the relationship between time pressure and knowledge hiding.,Despite its many contributions, the present research is also not without limitations. Study 1 was a cross-lagged sectional field study with self-reported data (although the two-wave design does help alleviate common-method-bias concerns). Causality concerns were further alleviated by using additional experimental study.,The paper highlights important reasons why people hide knowledge at work (because of experienced time pressure) as well as identifies two interlinked potential remedies (prosocial motivation and perspective taking) to reduce knowledge hiding.,This paper contributes to expanding nomological network of knowledge hiding construct by extending the set of known antecedents and contingencies.

/pdf/tell-me-if-you-can-time-pressure-prosocial-motivation-dzd5tu8qzn.pdf

Tell Me If You Can: Time Pressure, Prosocial Motivation, Perspective Taking, and Knowledge Hiding

This study investigated the relationship between time pressure and creativity with a new method for examining daily thoughts, experiences, and events in organizations. Daily electronic questionnaires were obtained over periods of up to 30 weeks from 177 individuals in seven companies as they worked on projects requiring creativity. Narrative reports of events occurring in those projects were used to extract measures of participants’ creative cognitive processing, and daily scale-rated items yielded measures of time pressure. Analyses incorporating several controls, including the number of hours worked, indicated that time pressure on a given day negatively predicted creative cognitive processing that day, one day later, two days later, and over longer time periods as well. The relationship may be a direct one; it was not mediated by intrinsic motivation in this study, and prior research suggests that time pressure may directly constrain cognitive processes related to creativity. These results have theoretical implications for understanding how creativity is affected by various aspects of the work environment, and methodological implications for looking inside the “black box” of creative thinking. Time Pressure and Creativity 1 Time Pressure and Creativity in Organizations: A Longitudinal Field Study Time pressure is becoming an increasingly prominent feature of work in America. Both the business press and the organizational literature have identified a “time famine,” in which people feel that there are never enough hours in the work day (Perlow, 1999). Indeed, it is likely that anyone reading this paper has a daunting “To Do” list on the current mental agenda. At the same time, with the growth of knowledge work, there is an increasingly urgent need for creative thinking in organizations. Are these two trends at odds? Might increasing time pressure be sabotaging organizational efforts to produce useful new ideas? Researchers have paid scant attention to this question, and lay wisdom includes contradictory views about the effects of time pressure. Some people hold that it spurs them on to their best work; others say that it makes high levels of performance almost impossible. In this paper, we report a study examining the relationship between time pressure and creative thinking. In addition, we introduce a new methodology for observing creative thinking as it occurs in organizations. We suggest that time pressure, although it may spur people on to do more work, may undermine precisely the kind of thinking needed to do creative work. Prior research on performance effects has demonstrated clearly that time pressure – defined as either subjectively perceived time pressure or the imposition of a deadline – increases the rate of individual and group performance (Kelly & Karau, 1993, 1999). However, results have been much less consistent on the quality of performance, with evidence of a positive relationship (Kelly & Karau, 1999), a negative relationship (Kelly & McGrath, 1985), a curvilinear relationship indicating an optimal level of moderate time pressure (Isenberg, 1981), and no relationship at all (Bassett, 1979). Importantly, most of this research has focused on the performance of relatively straightforward tasks rather than tasks requiring creativity. Indeed, there is little research directly examining the effect of time pressure on creativity, which is defined as a novel, appropriate response to an open-ended task (Amabile, 1983). We found only four previous studies, with three showing a negative effect and one showing a positive effect. An experimental study found that products generated by groups working under a 10-minute time limit were rated as less creative than those generated by groups working under a 20-minute time limit (Kelly & McGrath, 1985). A survey study of marketing professionals revealed a negative relationship between perceived time pressure and perceived overall creativity of marketing ideas (Andrews & Smith, 1996). A negative effect was also uncovered in a field study of workload pressure, defined by items concerning both perceived time pressure and perceived workload (which were highly inter-related). This study found suggestive (but weak) evidence that greater workload pressure was associated with less creative group projects in organizations (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). One field study, however, obtained opposite results; this study, conducted 30 years ago, found a positive relationship between scientists’ reported time pressure at a particular point in Time Pressure and Creativity 2 time and the supervisor-rated innovativeness of their work five years later (Andrews & Farris, 1972). Thus, although prior research on time pressure and creativity generally suggests a negative relationship, the body of empirical evidence is far from robust. Moreover, none of the few previous studies on time pressure and creativity has presented a strong theoretical framework for understanding how time pressure might have its effects. Most importantly, no research has directly examined the process that presumably underlies the production of creative work – creative thinking. We set out to do so in the present study. Creative Cognitive Processing The componential theory of creativity (Amabile, 1983, 1988, 1996) presents a promising framework for understanding the effects of time pressure. This theory, presented in modified form in Figure 1, can be useful in two ways. First, of the three primary theories of organizational creativity (Amabile, 1988; Ford, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), it is the only one to include time pressure. Specifically, it predicts that time pressure will have a negative effect on creativity. Second, like other psychological theories of creativity (Campbell, 1960; Simonton, 1999; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991; Wallas, 1926), it outlines the elements of creative thinking, or creative cognitive processing. It suggests two ways in which time pressure might have an effect: by directly affecting creative cognitive processing, and by affecting this processing through a motivational mechanism. Creative cognitive processing is central to creativity theories, because it is this set of various cognitive processes that most immediately determines the creativity of work outcomes. As shown in Figure 1, creative cognitive processing contains four basic elements: (a) identification and understanding of the problem or task, sparked by either an external or an internal stimulus; (b) preparation, involving learning and remembering, which helps to build up, reactivate, and/or incubate relevant information for the particular problem at hand; (c) response generation, or coming up with ideas for solving the problem; and (d) response validation and communication, involving articulating, testing, and trying out the most promising response possibilities. An individual engages in these processes, often cycling repeatedly through the various elements in different sequences, until the problem is solved or the task is completed. To the extent that this process is fostered, outcomes should be more creative. As essential as creative cognitive processing is to any creativity theory, this “black box” has been virtually ignored by prior research – most likely because looking at this processing, particularly in real-world settings, presents formidable methodological challenges. It is important to develop ways to meet those challenges, in order to fully understand how creativity happens and how it might be affected by time pressure and other features of the work environment. In the present study, we developed a methodology to observe evidence of creative cognitive processes as they were occurring in organizations. We then investigated whether perceived time pressure predicts those processes. Time Pressure and Creativity 3 Time Pressure and Creative Cognitive Processing We propose that time pressure, in the moderate to high levels generally experienced in contemporary organizations, has a direct negative effect on creative cognitive processing. According to the componential theory, creativity is determined by the effects of one extra-individual (outside the person) component and three intraindividual (inside the person) components on creative cognitive processing. The extraindividual component is the external work environment, consisting of several features of the organizational climate, the work group climate, managerial behaviors, and task constraints – including time pressure for getting the work done. The theory focuses on an indirect route by which the work environment might influence creativity – through influences on the intra-individual components. However, although it is not explicitly predicted by the theory, a direct effect of time pressure is suggested by a metaphor in the most recent revision of the theory (Amabile, 1996). According to this metaphor, doing a task or solving a problem is like getting through a maze; the comparison derives from Newell, Shaw, and Simon’s (1962) notion that creativity depends on the exploration of the maze of available cognitive pathways. Although satisfactory outcomes can be attained by following a straight path (a familiar task algorithm) out of the maze, creative solutions require exploration of unfamiliar territory. One recent laboratory study designed to examine the applicability of this maze metaphor revealed that people who allocate more time to exploratory task behaviors are more likely to produce work that is rated by observers as creative (Ruscio, Whitney, & Amabile, 1998). If such cognitive exploration of the maze of possibilities is important to creativity, there must be sufficient time devoted to the cognitive processing involved in intellectually playing with ideas and possible solution paths. Indeed, Einstein once referred to creativity as “combinatorial play” (Einstein, 1949). If people are too busy, they may not allocate the time to engage i

Time Pressure and Creativity in Organizations: A Longitudinal Field Study

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

William B. Simpson

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Time Pressure and Creativity in Organizations: A Longitudinal Field Study