nach oben

Journal of Business and Psychology

Erschienen in:

01.09.2010

The Alignment of Measures and Constructs in Organizational Research: The Case of Testing Measurement Models of Creativity

verfasst von: Diane M. Sullivan, Cameron M. Ford

Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology | Ausgabe 3/2010

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

Organizational creativity research has a curious misalignment between construct definitions and measurement model specifications—definitions embrace multiple facets, but empirical measures do not. The purpose of this study was to examine potential measurement model misspecification in organizational creativity research. We compare whether creativity is best assessed as a unidimensional common latent construct model with reflective indicators or as a multi-dimensional composite latent construct model with formative indicators.

Design/methodology/approach

To assess potential measurement model misspecification, two studies were conducted in organizational and professional settings. For Study One, MBA students (n = 152) evaluated stimuli from entrepreneurship and advertising. For study, two professional artists (n = 167) evaluated art domain stimuli.

Findings

CFA results suggest composite latent construct models with two factors (novelty and usefulness) represent creativity assessments in entrepreneurship, advertising, and art better than one- and three-factor models.

Implications

Results suggest that failure to acknowledge inconsistencies between construct definitions and measurement models may put researchers at risk of reporting findings with limited statistical conclusion validity. Further, improved theories and empirical models should include facets of creativity. Broader implications of measurement model misspecification for organizational science research are also discussed.

Originality/value

This is one of the first studies to examine the potential measurement model misspecification in organizational creativity research. We examined this potential using data from three domains and across two domain-specific samples. The results were robust across all samples and settings and suggest concern with respect to current methods used for measuring organizational creativity.

Vorheriger Artikel Applying Recommendations from the Literature on Stereotype Threat: Two Field Studies

Nächster Artikel How Benefit Information and Demographics Influence Employee Recruiting in Mexico

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Consistent with most, recent, organizational creativity research we employ a product-focused definition of creativity (Amabile 1982) that includes both novelty and usefulness. We do, however, acknowledge that creativity has been studied from other foci including the process and the person and these perspectives may employ different definitions of creativity. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for this point.

We included stylistic appeal as a comparative dimension for several reasons. First, consistent with Amabile’s (1982) consensual assessment technique, the judges were asked to make assessments on other appropriate dimensions, such as aesthetical appeal. Second, recent creativity research has suggested that domains such as art, advertising, product design, product improvement, team processes, and business model development might benefit from including stylistic appeal as a dimension of creativity (O’Quin and Besemer 2006). Finally, the inclusion of this facet allows for a rigorous comparison of the appropriateness of different measurement models.

We would like to thank the editor and an anonymous reviewer for helping us to clarify this point.

Note a scale item including all novelty and usefulness items correlated with the overall creativity item (creative–uncreative) at r = .91 in art, r = .86 in advertising, and r = .90 in entrepreneurship.

Aldrich, H. W., Carter, N. M., & Ruef, M. (2004). Teams. In W. B. Gartner, K. G. Shaver, N. M. Carter, & P. D. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics: The process of business creation (pp. 299–310). London: Sage Publications.

Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G. A., Tangirala, S., & Oakley, J. L. (2006). Information privacy in organizations: Empowering creative and extrarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 221–232.CrossRefPubMed

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

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

Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 630–640.CrossRef

Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 963–970.CrossRefPubMed

Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS structural equation program manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software, Inc.

Besemer, S. P. (1998). Creative product analysis matrix: Testing the model structure and a comparison among products—Three novel chairs. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 333–346.CrossRef

Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. (1986). Analyzing creative products: Refinement and test of a judging instrument. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 115–126.

Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor Creative Product Analysis Matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 287–296.CrossRef

Besemer, S. P., & Treffinger, D. J. (1981). Analysis of creative products: Review and synthesis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 15, 158–178.

Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 95, 380–400.CrossRef

Cassie, B. S., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Errors in idea evaluation: Preference for the unoriginal? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41, 196–222.

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.CrossRefPubMed

Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.CrossRef

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRef

Drazin, R., Glynn, M., & Kazanjian, R. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 286–307.CrossRef

Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (2003). Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 283–301.CrossRef

Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 618–630.CrossRef

Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1016–1030.CrossRef

Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1112–1142.CrossRef

Ford, C. M., & Gioia, D. A. (2000). Factors influencing creativity in the domain of managerial decision making. Journal of Management, 26, 705–732.CrossRef

Ford, C., & Sullivan, D. M. (2004). A time for everything: How the timing of novel contributions influences project team outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 279–292.CrossRef

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513–524.CrossRefPubMed

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 687–697.CrossRefPubMed

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 605–622.CrossRef

Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (2005). Creativity and standardization: Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 521–531.CrossRef

Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, Transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 765–778.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170.CrossRef

Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476–501.CrossRef

Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRef

Jackson, P. Q., & Messick, S. (1967). The person, the product, and the response: Conceptual problems in the assessment of creativity. In J. Kagan (Ed.), Creativity and learning (pp. 1–19). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2003). LISREL 8.54 user’s reference guide. Scientific Software International. Chicago: Scientific Software.

Kim, K. H. (2006). Is creativity unidimensional or multidimensional? Analyses of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 251–259.CrossRef

Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., & Weaver, K. M. (2002). Assessing the psychometric properties of the entrepreneurial orientation scale: A multi-country analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 145–161.

Litchfield, R. C. (2008). Brainstorming reconsidered: A goal-based view. Academy of Management Review, 33, 649–668.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 710–730.CrossRefPubMed

Madjar, N., & Oldham, G. (2002). Preliminary tasks and creative performance on a subsequent task: Effects of time on preliminary tasks and amount of information about the subsequent task. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 239–251.CrossRef

Madjar, N., Oldham, G., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place like home? The contributions of work and non-work sources of creativity support to employees’ creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 757–767.CrossRef

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational Science, 2, 71–87.CrossRef

March, J. G., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391–410.CrossRef

Mumford, M. D., Supinski, E. P., Baughman, W. A., Costanza, D. P., & Threlfall, K. V. (1997). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: V. Overall prediction. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 73–85.CrossRef

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 392–423.CrossRefPubMed

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.CrossRef

O’Quin, K., & Besemer, S. P. (2006). Using the creative product semantic scale as a metric for results-oriented business. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 24–44.

Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Evans, J. M. (2008). Unlocking the effects of gender faultlines on team creativity: Is activation the key? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 225–234.CrossRefPubMed

Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 85–101.CrossRef

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, J. Y. (2003). The mismeasurement of man(agement) and its implications for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 615–656.CrossRef

Powell, W. W. (1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 183–203). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A first course in structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 120–151.CrossRef

Reiter-Palmon, R., Illies, M. Y., Cross, L. K., Buboltz, C., & Nimps, T. (2009). Creativity and domain specificity: The effect of task type on multiple index of creative problem-solving. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 3, 73–80.CrossRef

Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., O’Connor Boes, J., & Runco, M. A. (1997). Problem construction and creativity: The role of ability, cue consistency, and active processing. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 9–23.CrossRef

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

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179–185.CrossRef

Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 483–503.CrossRef

Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 215–223.CrossRef

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958.

Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conversation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–714.CrossRef

Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709–1721.CrossRefPubMed

Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry, 10, 309–328.CrossRef

Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creativity resources: A multi-level model. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315–330.CrossRef

Taylor, C. W., & Ellison, R. L. (1972). Predictors and criteria of creativity—A Utah progress report. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Climate for creativity (pp. 149–165). New York: Pergamon Press.

Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591–620.CrossRef

Von Nordenflycht, A. (2007). Is public ownership bad for professional service firms? Ad agency ownership, performance, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 429–445.CrossRef

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Wijnberg, N. M., & Gemser, G. (2000). Adding value to innovation: Impressionism and the transformation of the selection system in visual arts. Organization Science, 11, 323–329.CrossRef

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

Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 261–276.CrossRef

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, 413–422.CrossRefPubMed

Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682–697.CrossRef

Titel: The Alignment of Measures and Constructs in Organizational Research: The Case of Testing Measurement Models of Creativity
verfasst von: Diane M. Sullivan
Cameron M. Ford
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2010
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology / Ausgabe 3/2010
Print ISSN: 0889-3268
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-353X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9147-8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Design/methodology/approach

Findings

Implications

Originality/value

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2010

Sequential and Combined Effects of Recruitment Information on Applicant Reactions

What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational Research

Flight from Unfairness: Effects of Perceived Injustice on Emotional Exhaustion and Employee Withdrawal

Applying Recommendations from the Literature on Stereotype Threat: Two Field Studies

Rater Personality and Performance Dimension Weighting in Making Overall Performance Judgments

How Benefit Information and Demographics Influence Employee Recruiting in Mexico

Premium Partner