Zoning Out or Breaking Through

Academy of Management Journal
Zoning out or Breaking Through? Linking Daydreaming to

Creativity in the Workplace
Journal: Academy of Management Journal
Manuscript ID AMJ-2017-1283.R3
Manuscript Type: Revision
Creativity < Behavior < Organizational Behavior < Topic Areas,

Attitudes, cognitions, and affect (General) < Attitudes, Cognitions, and
Keywords:
Affect < Organizational Behavior < Topic Areas, Survey < Quantitative
Orientation < Research Methods
Much has been written about the liabilities of mind wandering in the
workplace. Given its prevalence, however, mind wandering may carry
underappreciated benefits—especially with respect to creativity.
Examining this possibility, we hypothesize that mind wandering involving
imaginative thoughts, also known as “daydreams,” has the potential to
spur creativity. We develop a theoretical model in which we examine two
facets of daydreams based on their content: problem-oriented
daydreams and bizarre daydreams. In addition, we specify an
antecedent condition that produces such daydreams (cognitively
demanding work; Studies 1 & 2), as well as a boundary condition of the
effects of daydreaming on creativity (professional identification; Study
Abstract:
2). Taken together, the studies reported here largely support our
theoretical model. Cognitive demanding work reliably elicits both facets
of daydreams. However, only problem-oriented daydreams relate to
creativity directly; the relationship between bizarre daydreams and
creativity is entirely dependent on professional identification. In addition,
we observe negative relationships between both facets of daydreams
and performance more generally when employees lack professional
identification (Study 2). Our results indicate that among professionally
identified individuals, daydreaming carries noteworthy benefits for
creativity but also that daydreaming can impair performance in the
absence of identification.
Page 1 of 54 Academy of Management Journal
1
2
3
4 Zoning Out or Breaking Through?
5 Linking Daydreaming to Creativity in the Workplace
6
7
8
9 Markus Baer
10 Washington University in St. Louis
11 St. Louis, MO 63130
12 baer@wustl.edu
13
14
15
Erik Dane
16 Washington University in St. Louis
17 St. Louis, MO 63130
18 erikdane@wustl.edu
19
20 Hector P. Madrid
21
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
22
23 Santiago, Chile
24 hpmadrid@uc.cl
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Author note: Order of authorship is alphabetical; all authors contributed equally. We wish to thank
55 Cristian Vasquez, Miguel Ibaceta, and Kristen Nault for their help in collecting data for this manuscript
56 and Andrew Knight for his comments on an earlier version of this paper.
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Journal Page 2 of 54
1
2
3 ZONING OUT OR BREAKING THROUGH?
4
5
LINKING DAYDREAMING TO CREATIVITY IN THE WORKPLACE
6
7 ABSTRACT
8
9
Much has been written about the liabilities of mind wandering in the workplace. Given its
10 prevalence, however, mind wandering may carry underappreciated benefits—especially with
11 respect to creativity. Examining this possibility, we hypothesize that mind wandering involving
12 imaginative thoughts, also known as “daydreams,” has the potential to spur creativity. We
13 develop a theoretical model in which we examine two facets of daydreams based on their
14 content: problem-oriented daydreams and bizarre daydreams. In addition, we specify an
15
antecedent condition that produces such daydreams (cognitively demanding work; Studies 1 &
16
17 2), as well as a boundary condition of the effects of daydreaming on creativity (professional
18 identification; Study 2). Taken together, the studies reported here largely support our theoretical
19 model. Cognitive demanding work reliably elicits both facets of daydreams. However, only
20 problem-oriented daydreams relate to creativity directly; the relationship between bizarre
21 daydreams and creativity is entirely dependent on professional identification. In addition, we
22 observe negative relationships between both facets of daydreams and performance more
23
generally when employees lack professional identification (Study 2). Our results indicate that
24
25 among professionally identified individuals, daydreaming carries noteworthy benefits for
26 creativity but also that daydreaming can impair performance in the absence of identification.
27
28
29 “I think I can confidently predict that anyone reading this article will at some point drift
30 away, hopefully only momentarily, to thoughts of forthcoming rendezvous, anticipated
31
32
dinners, delightful summer vacations, or clever bits of revenge on political opponents in
33 their [academic] departments.”
34 —Singer (1975: 729)
35
36 Frequently and without warning, the human mind wanders. In such occasions, the mind
37
38
relinquishes its hold on the task at hand and generates content unrelated to one’s surroundings
39
40
41 (Schooler et al., 2011; Smallwood & Schooler, 2006). The ubiquity of mind wandering provides
42
43 cause for concern in the workplace. For those presenting at a client or board meeting, who could
44
45 possibly take satisfaction in realizing that those in the room are not “present”? How would we
46
47
48 feel about a negotiator’s mind drifting during a bargaining session? A trial lawyer zoning out in
49
50 the courtroom? A surgeon whose thoughts have strayed from the operating table?
51
52 As scholars and managers are well aware, it is important for workers to carefully attend
53
54
55
to and process signals in their surroundings in order to make informed decisions and avoid costly
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 errors (Bazerman, 2014; Chabris & Simons, 2010). Perhaps not surprisingly, then, research on
4
5
6 mind wandering has focused largely on its performance-related risks and costs (Randall, Oswald,
7
8 & Beier, 2014). Such research has examined the deleterious outcomes of mind wandering in
9
10 areas including medical practice (Smallwood, Mrazek, & Schooler, 2011), education
11
12
13
(Smallwood, Fishman, & Schooler, 2007), reading (Smallwood, McSpadden, & Schooler, 2008),
14
15 and everyday life (Robertson, Manly, Andrade, Baddeley, & Yiend, 1997). In addition,
16
17 researchers have documented hedonic costs of a wandering mind. As it appears, the more one’s
18
19
mind wanders, the lower one’s psychological well-being (Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010; for a
20
21
22 counterpoint, see Mason, Brown, Mar, & Smallwood, 2013).
23
24 In short, mind wandering is an unsettling phenomenon, especially in light of research
25
26 suggesting that, on average, the human mind spends close to half of its waking hours in a state of
27
28
29 wandering (Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010). At the same time, however, the prevalence of mind
30
31 wandering raises an interesting question—does mind wandering carry underappreciated benefits?
32
33 Beginning to address this question, recent scholarship has observed that mind wandering can
34
35
36
remind people of uncompleted goals (Mason & Reinholtz, 2015). In particular, as our thoughts
37
38 stray from the task at hand, we are apt to consider other tasks, problems, or assignments that are
39
40 pending, such that these action items “remain activated and in queue” (Dane, 2018: 183).
41
42
Likewise, mind wandering can help people anticipate and plan for the future (Baird, Smallwood,
43
44
45 & Schooler, 2011; Suddendorf & Corballis, 2007). Indeed, without the mind’s tendency to
46
47 envision scenarios that may come to pass, we might spend insufficient time planning and
48
49 preparing for events that might be worth pursuing, welcoming, or avoiding at all costs (cf.
50
51
52 Seligman, Railton, Baumeister, & Sripada, 2013).
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Mind wandering may have an additional advantage—a benefit that is at the core of this
4
5
6 paper. As their minds wander, people may enter worlds rich with possibility and imagination
7
8 (Ehn & Löfgren, 2010; Singer, 1966). That is, people may engage in “imaginative mind
9
10 wandering” (Dane, 2018), which has also been referred to as daydreaming (Klinger, 2009;
11
12
13
Markey, 1935). Daydreaming constitutes “mental activity that departs from reality” (Klinger,
14
15 2009: 225). By its very nature, then, daydreaming enables people to conceive imaginative,
16
17 creative, or fantastic possibilities (Singer, 1975; Singer & Antrobus, 1972). In this way,
18
19
daydreaming can serve to produce novel ideas, some of which may prove useful for their
20
21
22 progenitors and the organizations that employ them. Thus, daydreaming may sow the seeds of
23
24 creativity (Dane, 2018; McMillan, Kaufman, & Singer, 2013).
25
26 Through the research reported here, we build theory around—and provide empirical
27
28
29 support for—the potential utility of daydreaming for creativity in the workplace. To this end, we
30
31 build on existing literature surrounding mind wandering and daydreaming focusing on two facets
32
33 of daydreams. The first captures imaginative thought that is loosely inspired by or can be
34
35
36
ultimately connected to the problems individuals face in their day-to-day activities. Such
37
38 daydreams have the potential to result in the development of fresh ideas and solutions for the
39
40 problems to which they relate. In line with classic and contemporary research on mind
41
42
wandering and daydreaming (e.g., Dane, 2018; Singer & Antrobus, 1972), we label this type of
43
44
45 mental activity problem-oriented daydreams. The second facet captures imaginative thought that
46
47 is not linked to existing problems or challenges. Rather, this imaginative thought explores
48
49 alternative or utterly improbable possibilities (Merckelbach, Horselenberg, & Muris, 2001;
50
51
52 Schupak & Rosenthal, 2009). These daydreams have the potential to help individuals not only to
53
54 identify new opportunities or to re-envision existing challenges but also to derive new solutions
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 to problems that have yet to be identified. Consistent with previous work (e.g., Dane, 2018;
4
5
6 Singer & Antrobus, 1972), we refer to this type of mental activity as bizarre daydreams.
7
8 Given the imaginative nature of both problem-oriented and bizarre daydreams, we expect
9
10 such activity to offer particular benefits to individuals’ creativity, defined as the generation of
11
12
13
new and potentially useful ideas (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). In
14
15 addition to examining the effects on creativity of different facets of daydreams, we explore a
16
17 driving force behind their occurrence. Although some may view daydreaming and work as
18
19
antithetical, we argue that in today’s “knowledge economy,” certain demands associated with
20
21
22 knowledge work prompt daydreaming. Specifically, people may be drawn toward daydreaming
23
24 as both an escape from and an avenue for reengaging with work-related problems. In making this
25
26 case, we consider the role of cognitively demanding work—activities that require individuals to
27
28
29 attend to and engage with challenging problems (e.g., Jackson, Wall, Martin, & Davids, 1993;
30
31 Wall, Jackson, & Mullarkey, 1995)—as a key driver of the types of daydreams people have in
32
33 work settings. Thus, our research depicts daydreaming as a critical mechanism accounting for the
34
35
36
connection between the type of work people do and the level of creativity they exhibit on the job.
37
38 We also consider the conditions under which daydreams are most beneficial to creativity
39
40 at work. To this end, we integrate theoretical work on daydreaming with research on identity and
41
42
identification as a way to understand how people engage with their daydreams. In doing so, we
43
44
45 build upon the observation that people interpret and make sense of their inner experience based
46
47 on identity-related factors (e.g., Cross, Gore, & Morris, 2003; Fraher & Gabriel, 2014) by linking
48
49 this observation to how people view and draw upon their daydreams. In doing so, we examine
50
51
52 the role of professional identification—the extent to which professional employees experience a
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 sense of oneness with their profession (Hekman, Steensma, Bigley, & Hereford, 2009)—as a
4
5
6 moderator of the relations proposed in our model.
7
8 In sum, we submit that certain daydreams arise from cognitively demanding work and
9
10 that such daydreams, in turn, have the potential to stimulate creativity, particularly among people
11
12
13
who are psychologically attached to their professions. We test our model through two studies—
14
15 an experience-sampling study involving 169 professionals from a wide range of industries and a
16
17 field study of 117 professional employees and their 46 supervisors—and find some support for
18
19
its validity.
20
21
22 Our work makes two primary contributions to the literatures on mind wandering and
23
24 creativity. First and foremost, whereas previous research on mind wandering has focused largely
25
26 on the conditions under which mind wandering occurs and its negative consequences in
27
28
29 organizations, we highlight a potential upside of this activity. We do so by focusing on the
30
31 imaginative realm of mind wandering (i.e., daydreaming) and by identifying the daydreaming
32
33 facets most likely to yield beneficial returns. As our results demonstrate, to the extent that the
34
35
36
mind wanders to imaginative content, creativity benefits, albeit to different degrees based on
37
38 whether this content is problem-oriented or bizarre. Thus, our results challenge the predominant
39
40 narrative surrounding mind wandering by serving notice that, in the workplace, mind wandering
41
42
is not only a liability but also a potential asset.
43
44
45 Second, we contribute to the literature on creativity by highlighting a heretofore largely
46
47 ignored vehicle for the development of creative ideas—daydreams. While we are not the first to
48
49 suggest that daydreams can facilitate creativity (see, e.g., Gable, Hopper, & Schooler, 2019), our
50
51
52 study is the first in this area to identify the specific facets of daydreams based on their content
53
54 and to examine how they relate to creativity. In addition, our work contributes to the existing
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 literature by revealing a boundary condition of the effects of daydreams on creativity.
4
5
6 Daydreams have the potential to enhance creativity but the strength of this effect depends on
7
8 individuals’ identification with their profession. Overall, our findings bolster the case for
9
10 daydreams as a source of creative ideas and suggest that organizations may benefit from taking
11
12
13
steps to remove the stigma surrounding this activity.
14
15 THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT
16
17 Daydreaming is a specific type of mind wandering and one that is especially relevant for
18
19 creativity in the workplace. We first consider daydreaming in the broader context of mind
20
21 wandering and the research surrounding it. Recent years have witnessed increasing convergence
22
23
among researchers in terms of what mind wandering signifies and how it differs from other
24
25
26 concepts in the literature. As noted in Dane’s (2018: 180) review of work in this area, “mind
27
28 wandering is a psychological state in which one’s thoughts have departed from the task at hand
29
30 as well as the stimulus environment more generally.” In other words, when one’s mind is
31
32
33 wandering, one is generating thoughts disconnected from one’s present circumstances.
34
35 Mind wandering differs from concepts that often may be thought of as being
36
37 interchangeable, such as distraction and multitasking. Distraction involves the commandeering of
38
39
40 one’s attention by some aspect of the stimulus environment (Dane, 2018)—for example, a loud
41
42 noise in the hallway outside one’s office. By contrast, mind wandering involves the decoupling
43
44 between one’s thoughts and the stimulus environment, such that one’s thoughts are elsewhere
45
46
and one’s “presence” in the moment at hand is fundamentally limited (Goldman-Schuyler, Skjei,
47
48
49 Sanzgiri, & Koskela, 2017). Mind wandering also differs from multitasking (Salvucci &
50
51 Taatgen, 2008). Attempts at multitasking often amount to iterative episodes of “task-switching”
52
53 (Alzahabi & Becker, 2013). Research indicates that switching from one task to another can
54
55
56 produce attention residue, or “the persistence of cognitive activity about a Task A even though
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 one stopped working on Task A and currently performs a Task B” (Leroy, 2009: 169). In some
4
5
6 respects, attention residue is related to mind wandering and, at times, may constitute a form of it.
7
8 Nevertheless, attention residue is a more restrictive phenomenon—one concerned with thoughts
9
10 associated with the penultimate task one performed. As a broader phenomenon, mind wandering
11
12
13
concerns thoughts disconnected from the current stimulus environment that may encompass any
14
15 number of topics including but not limited to tasks performed days, weeks, or months ago,
16
17 anticipated or desired future states of affairs, and highly imaginative flights of fancy.
18
19
In identifying the type of mind wandering that is most likely to spur creativity in the
20
21
22 workplace, we build on recent theoretical and inductive work that has highlighted the importance
23
24 of considering the content of mind wandering (Dane, 2018; Merlo, Wiegand, Shaughnessy,
25
26 Kuykendall, & Weiss, 2019; Zedelius & Schooler, 2018). Rather than assuming that all mind
27
28
29 wandering is equal, this work suggests that the content of mind wandering varies considerably
30
31 across episodes and that those differences in content have implications for whether such activity
32
33 enhances or compromises creativity and performance more generally. Mind wandering that
34
35
36
involves thoughts or images of what could be or may never be—possibilities or scenarios
37
38 divorced from the bounds of plausibility or feasibility (Crawford, 1982; Singer, 1966) and which
39
40 Dane (2018) refers to as imaginative mind wandering—is the focus of our theorizing.
41
42
Imaginative mind wandering is especially well suited to creativity insofar as it produces
43
44
45 whimsical and playful ideas (Dane, 2018; Mainemelis & Ronson, 2006). As noted previously,
46
47 some refer to the imaginative content associated with mind wandering as daydreams (see
48
49 Klinger, 2009) and we adopt this term.
50
51
52 Two facets of daydreams appear particularly likely to enhance creativity—problem-
53
54 oriented daydreams and bizarre daydreams (Dane, 2018; Singer & Antrobus, 1972). Although
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 problem-oriented daydreaming involves the decoupling of attention from one’s task environment
4
5
6 (Schooler et al., 2011), the thoughts and images produced by such daydreams are loosely
7
8 inspired by or can be ultimately connected to the problems individuals face at work or in their
9
10 non-work lives (Dane, 2018). Such thoughts and images are comparable to imaginative “thought
11
12
13
trials,” which can play a key role in the process of theory building in academic disciplines
14
15 (Weick, 1989). In contrast, bizarre daydreams involve thoughts and images that are neither
16
17 inspired by nor directly linked to existing problems or challenges (Singer & Antrobus, 1972).
18
19
Rather, this daydreaming facet explores alternative or utterly improbable possibilities and thus
20
21
22 involves scenarios that, although perhaps initially bewildering, might delight a writer of fantasy
23
24 or science fiction.
25
26 Cognitively Demanding Work and Content of Daydreams
27
28 We are currently in the midst of a “knowledge economy”—a work world in which
29
30 performing one’s job often involves using intellectual resources and specialized expertise to
31
32
33 solve complex problems (Drucker, 1959; Powell & Snellman, 2004). Although there is some
34
35 evidence to suggest that the mind is apt to wander when it is disengaged (Christoff, Gordon,
36
37 Smallwood, Smith, & Schooler, 2009; Mason et al., 2007), research indicates that the mind also
38
39
40 tends to wander in response to demanding or stressful conditions (Kane et al., 2007; McVay,
41
42 Kane, & Kwapil, 2009), which one often encounters in knowledge work. Consistent with
43
44 previous research (e.g., Jackson et al., 1993; Wall et al., 1995), we conceptualize cognitively
45
46
demanding work as work that confronts people with new and difficult to solve problems for
47
48
49 which no solutions yet exist and that demands considerable psychological effort.
50
51 We theorize that cognitively demanding work relates to daydreaming in two ways. First,
52
53 such work involves solving challenging problems—a quest that can prove both invigorating and
54
55
56 vexing. For one who is engaged in cognitively demanding work, problems that have proved
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 resistant to solutions may prompt problem-related thoughts and images, even when one is
4
5
6 engaged with other tasks (cf. Gable et al., 2019). In other words, the stimulating quality of
7
8 problems stemming from cognitively demanding work entices workers to mentally reengage
9
10 with problems before returning to them in a more formal capacity. This possibility aligns with
11
12
13
the broader observation that challenging and complex work tasks tend to engage people and
14
15 drive their cognitive activity (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011). In short, cognitively
16
17 demanding work has the quality of a stimulant—it serves to spark daydreams around the very
18
19
tasks and problems it involves.
20
21
22 Second, in some cases, cognitively demanding work can become too much to bear. In
23
24 such cases, people’s minds may turn to daydreaming as a form of mental escape. Doing so may
25
26 involve playfully generating possibilities related to work-related problems different from the one
27
28
29 at hand—or it may involve engaging in more bizarre forms of daydreaming. Indeed, because
30
31 they involve departure into highly implausible and, at times, fantastic realms, bizarre daydreams
32
33 provide individuals maximal psychological escape from the intensity of their work and related
34
35
36
sources of stress in their lives. That is, such daydreams enable individuals to distance themselves
37
38 temporarily from whatever problems, concerns, duties, or demands are causing stress for them—
39
40 a possibility in tune with the observation that people seek release from stresses and demands
41
42
through specific forms of psychological withdrawal (Taris, Schreurs, & Van Iersel-Van Silfhout,
43
44
45 2001). Given these various possibilities, we expect to see positive associations between the
46
47 extent to which work is cognitively demanding and the occurrence of daydreams of both the
48
49 problem-oriented kind and the bizarre kind.
50
51
52 Hypothesis 1: Cognitively demanding work will be positively related to both problem-
53 oriented daydreams and bizarre daydreams.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Content of Daydreams and Creativity
4
5 Daydreams, in turn, should play a productive role in stimulating creativity. Indeed, the
6
7 annals of invention and discovery are replete with anecdotal reports of breakthroughs born in the
8
9
10 midst of daydreams. Consider, for example, the following:
11
12 Albert Einstein finally hit on the core idea underlying his famous theory of relativity one
13 night after months of intense mathematical exercises. He had given himself a break from
14 the work and let his imagination wander about the concepts of space and time. Various
15
images that came to mind prompted him to try a thought experiment: If two bolts of
16
17 lightning struck the front and back of a moving train at the same time, would an observer
18 standing beside the track and an observer standing on the moving train see the strikes as
19 simultaneous? The answer, in short, was no. The floodgates in Einstein’s mind opened,
20 and he laid down an ingenious description of the universe. (Knoblich & Oellinger, 2006:
21 38)
22 Consistent with this anecdotal account, we expect that daydreams have the potential to
23
24
25 stimulate the development of creative ideas in the workplace. More specifically, we expect that
26
27 each facet of daydreaming at the core of the present examination—problem-oriented daydreams
28
29 and bizarre daydreams—can spur creativity.
30
31
32
Problem-oriented daydreams encompass those thoughts and images that are loosely
33
34 inspired by or can be ultimately connected to the problems individuals face in their day-to-day
35
36 activities or in their non-work lives (Singer & Antrobus, 1972). We suggest that the primary
37
38
theoretical mechanism by which such daydreams enhance creativity is directly via the generation
39
40
41 of novel and useful ideas (Giambra, 1974; Singer, 1975). Much like in the previous example,
42
43 daydreams may follow a period of deep engagement with a challenging problem in the search for
44
45 a solution. Although the thoughts and images that come to mind during problem-oriented
46
47
48 daydreaming may not directly stem from or relate to the unresolved problem—the image of the
49
50 bolt of lightning in Einstein’s example is unlikely to have been the direct consequence of his
51
52 mathematical exercise—they may nevertheless inspire playful engagement with the problem. In
53
54
55
this way, new possibilities may emerge that cause individuals to further explore or refine these
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 new possibilities to result in ideas that are not only novel but also have the potential to ultimately
4
5
6 address the problem.
7
8 Bizarre daydreams encompass those thoughts and images that explore outlandish or
9
10 utterly improbable possibilities (Singer & Antrobus, 1972). While implausible and not directly or
11
12
13
indirectly targeted toward work- or life-related problems, such daydreams do not necessarily lack
14
15 creative utility. Indeed, creativity often entails the identification of problems that are worth
16
17 solving in the first place (Baer, Dirks, & Nickerson, 2013; Unsworth, 2001). In addition, in many
18
19
instances a new idea is born only then to trigger a search for a relevant problem to which it may
20
21
22 constitute a valuable solution (Vera & Crossan, 2004). In short, we suspect that the fantastic and
23
24 bizarre thoughts and images the mind formulates as bizarre daydreams arise spark creativity by
25
26 allowing individuals (1) to identify new problems that have yet to gain attention and (2) to derive
27
28
29 completely new solutions to problems that have yet to be identified.
30
31 Previous work provides some indirect evidence supporting our arguments. In particular,
32
33 experimental research indicates that mind wandering plays a role in sparking incubation-based
34
35
36
creativity (Baird et al., 2012; Leszczynski et al., 2017). For instance, Baird et al. (2012) found
37
38 that subjects assigned to a condition conducive to mind wandering (a phenomenon inclusive of,
39
40 though not limited to, daydreaming) exhibited superior performance on creativity problems
41
42
compared to those assigned to conditions less conducive to mind wandering. As the researchers
43
44
45 concluded, mind wandering can facilitate incubation, thereby contributing to creativity.
46
47 Additionally, in a study focusing on physicists and writers, participants indicated that ideas
48
49 emerging during mind wandering were relatively more likely to involve overcoming a problem-
50
51
52 solving impasse compared to ideas formulated while focusing on the task at hand (Gable et al.,
53
54 2019). While these findings do not directly speak to the arguments we put forth—which focus on
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 the content of mind wandering and, in particular, the content of one’s daydreams—they do
4
5
6 provide some circumstantial evidence in support of them. Thus, we propose the following:
7
8 Hypothesis 2: Problem-oriented daydreams and bizarre daydreams will be positively
9 related to creativity.
10
11
Combining our arguments, we maintain that cognitively demanding work, to the extent
12
13
14 that it entices the mind to wander toward imaginative thoughts and imagery, offers creative
15
16 returns. This possibility aligns with and opens new windows into a claim found in previous
17
18 research—namely, that cognitively demanding work is positively related to creativity (e.g., Ohly
19
20
21 & Fritz, 2010; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Taken together, our arguments illuminate an
22
23 unexplored rationale for why this relationship exists.
24
25 Hypothesis 3: Cognitively demanding work will exert indirect effects on creativity via
26 both problem-oriented daydreams and bizarre daydreams.
27
28
29 Professional Identification as a Boundary Condition
30 Implicit in our arguments so far is the assumption that all individuals are equally likely to
31
32
33 consider their daydreams valid avenues for creativity. However, this may be a strong
34
35 assumption—after all, we are all familiar with people who view mind wandering, in general, and
36
37 daydreaming, specifically, as frivolous activities and a waste of time. So, the question arises
38
39
40 whether there are certain personal factors, especially factors that influence how individuals
41
42 process information and interpret events, which make it more likely for daydreams to fulfill their
43
44 creative potential.
45
46
We argue that an especially prominent set of factors concerns how people view
47
48
49 themselves at an identity-level. This claim follows from the observation that one’s conception of
50
51 “self” exerts a fundamental influence on how one attends to and interprets the phenomena one
52
53 encounters (Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Hastorf & Cantril, 1954; Obodaru, 2012), including one’s
54
55
56 inner experiences, such as reflections, tensions, contradictions, and fantasies (Aronson, 1992;
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Cross et al., 2003; Fraher & Gabriel, 2014; Markus, 1977). In other words, to understand how an
4
5
6 individual makes sense of and engages with a particular stimulus (e.g., a given thought or event),
7
8 it is paramount to account for the individual’s identity—and hence, the targets with which the
9
10 individual identifies (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). For example, the more strongly
11
12
13
managers define themselves in terms of their functional area, the more apt they should be to view
14
15 organizational or industry events through the lens of that particular area (cf. Beyer et al., 1997).
16
17 Likewise, the more one identifies with a particular social group (e.g., one’s work unit), the more
18
19
inclined one should be to make sense of social behavior through the perspective of group-level
20
21
22 values rather than from a more egocentric standpoint (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). More generally,
23
24 as March (1994) maintains, in many cases people appraise novel situations by asking themselves
25
26 not simply what type of situation is at hand but also how someone like them (i.e., someone with
27
28
29 a similar identity) should be expected to engage with such a situation. Thus, March’s (1994)
30
31 “logic of appropriateness” underscores the centrality of identity to information processing and
32
33 interpretation and buttresses the view that the “meaning” of a particular event is fundamentally
34
35
36
shaped by one’s own self-conceptualization (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010).
37
38 An identity-related factor intimately tied to the context we are examining and thus,
39
40 particularly relevant, is professional identification. Professional identification captures the
41
42
degree to which one’s membership in a particular profession or occupation is central to one’s
43
44
45 sense of self (Hekman et al., 2009; Pratt, Rockmann, & Kaufmann, 2006). The more identified
46
47 one is with one’s profession, the more likely one is to derive enjoyment and meaning from one’s
48
49 work. In fact, in a qualitative case study of 31 members of an architecture firm, enjoyment of
50
51
52 work emerged as perhaps the strongest explanation for why architects indicated they identified
53
54 with their profession (Vough, 2012). Given that professionally identified individuals tend to
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 derive enjoyment and meaning from the work itself rather than from obtaining, for instance,
4
5
6 prestige, they should be more motivated to strive for creativity and more likely to persist in its
7
8 pursuit (Hirst, van Dick, & van Knippenberg, 2009; Madjar, Greenberg, & Chen, 2011). Indeed,
9
10 affective states that are positive and activated, such as joy and excitement, have been linked to
11
12
13
more expansive cognitive processing and greater motivation (e.g., Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, &
14
15 Staw, 2005), both of which are fundamental to creativity (e.g., De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, 2008;
16
17 Madrid, Patterson, Birdi, Leiva, & Kausel, 2014).
18
19
Based on the arguments above, we expect those who are strongly identified with their
20
21
22 profession to be more likely to consider their daydreams—even the more bizarre ones—as
23
24 potentially valuable opportunities for creativity. In other words, the more identified individuals
25
26 are with their professions—and thus, the more enjoyment they derive from attending to and
27
28
29 solving the problems and challenges associated with their professions—the more likely they
30
31 should be to consider their daydreams productive inputs into their generative processes. As a
32
33 result, they should pay greater attention to their daydreams. In addition, we expect highly
34
35
36
identified professionals to work more diligently towards harnessing the creative potential of their
37
38 daydreams by creating connections between their daydreams and existing problems, identifying
39
40 completely new problems, or pursuing creative ideas even in the absence of an existing problem.
41
42
In other words, daydreams should become more valuable in the hands of those who strongly
43
44
45 identify with their profession. These claims align with the more general observation that, to the
46
47 degree one identifies with a particular role (e.g., one’s profession), one is likely to interpret—and
48
49 elaborate upon—various events and stimuli (e.g., one’s daydreams) through the lens of that role
50
51
52 and its attendant values and practices (Hekman et al., 2009; Pratt, 2000; Tierney, 2015).
53
54 Based on these arguments, we expand upon Hypothesis 3 by suggesting that professional
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 identification will serve as a second-stage moderator of the indirect effects of cognitively
4
5
6 demanding work on creativity via the two facets of daydreams. Specifically, we expect
7
8 professional identification to strengthen the link between the two facets of daydreaming and
9
10 creativity, thereby enhancing the indirect effects when it is high as compared to when it is low.
11
12
13
Hypothesis 4: Professional identification will serve as a second stage moderator of the
14 indirect effects of cognitively demanding work on creativity via problem-oriented
15 daydreams and bizarre daydreams; the indirect effects will be stronger when
16 professional identification is high as opposed to when it is low.
17
18 Daydreams and Performance
19
20 Although the focus of our work is on creativity and the role that daydreams play in
21
22 enhancing it, we also explore the indirect effects of cognitively demanding work via problem-
23
24
25 oriented and bizarre daydreams on performance more generally. In light of previous work that
26
27 has highlighted the potential costs of daydreaming, evaluating the possibility that daydreams of
28
29 either facet may compromise performance seems prudent. Specifically, we expect that to the
30
31
32
extent cognitively demanding work entices employees to daydream—either because their minds
33
34 are stimulated or because they need an escape—performance may suffer. This is because the
35
36 benefits of problem-oriented and bizarre daydreams are due to enriching people’s capacity for
37
38
generating novel solutions to existing or newly identified or formulated problems. To the extent
39
40
41 that problem formulation and creative idea generation are not integral to employees’ work, they
42
43 may well serve to compromise performance. In other words, in circumstances in which creativity
44
45 is peripheral or entirely irrelevant to an employee’s work, daydreaming may take time away
46
47
48 from performing one’s job while yielding few, if any, benefits.
49
50 We expect that the effects on performance of cognitive demanding work via problem-
51
52 oriented and bizarre daydreams are independent of people’s professional identification. As
53
54
55
argued, professional identification renders daydreams more valuable from the standpoint of
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 creativity. We do not expect such benefits to materialize for performance, given that the
4
5
6 hypothesized interplay between daydreams and professional identification is specifically
7
8 concerned with how people harness their daydreams in the service of creativity. Although we do
9
10 not advance formal hypotheses involving performance, we nevertheless evaluate performance-
11
12
13
related effects in an effort to offer some evidence about the discriminant validity of our model.
14
15 THE PRESENT RESEARCH
16
17 We conducted two studies to capture both the within-person and between-person aspects
18
19 of cognitive demanding work and daydreaming activity. Within-person changes in these
20
21 variables seem particularly pertinent to consider given the spontaneous and episodic nature of
22
23
daydreams (Gable et al., 2019; Smallwood & Schooler, 2015) and the fact that cognitive
24
25
26 demands ebb and flow during the work day as new problems and challenges arise (Breevart &
27
28 Bakker, 2018; Tadić, Bakker, & Oerlemans, 2013). Indeed, previous work suggests that the
29
30
within-person variance in job demands exceeds between-person variance (Totterdell, Wood, &
31
32
33 Wall, 2006). Consequently, in our first study we focus on within-person variations in cognitively
34
35 demanding work and daydreaming over time and their subsequent effects on self-rated creativity.
36
37 To examine the effects of generalized perceptions of cognitively demanding work and
38
39
40 daydreaming on other-rated creativity, in our second study we focus on the between-person
41
42 variations in cognitively demanding work and daydreaming and their effects (as moderated by
43
44 professional identification) on supervisor-rated creativity. Study 1 was designed to test
45
46
47
Hypotheses 1 through 3; Study 2 was designed to test the full model (Hypotheses 1 through 4).
48
49 STUDY 1
50
51 Sample and Procedure
52 To test the direct and indirect effects of cognitively demanding work on creativity via
53
54
55 daydreaming and to account for the fluctuations of these variables over time (see Amabile et al.,
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 2005; Kane et al., 2017), we conducted a weeklong daily-life diary study in South America. We
4
5
6 recruited participants via LinkedIn, the professional networking site, to reflect our theoretical
7
8 focus on work that is cognitively demanding and on contexts in which “the majority of the
9
10 members are professionals, the professional content of the work is central to the mission of the
11
12
13
organization, and the goals of the organization are largely consistent with those of the
14
15 professionals it employs” (Wallace, 1995: 229). In an initial step, we invited for participation a
16
17 diverse array of individuals by posting a call to full-time employees on the LinkedIn homepage
18
19
of one of the members of the research team. Individuals interested in our study, which was
20
21
22 advertised as a general study on creativity, were redirected to a website where they could register
23
24 their contact details. The website also offered a detailed description of the study and asked
25
26 participants for their informed consent.
27
28
29 An initial pool of 192 individuals expressed interest to participate. One week later, after
30
31 closing the call for participation, registered individuals were sent a URL link to their email
32
33 addresses every day, Monday to Friday, at 4:00 pm. The link brought respondents to a survey,
34
35
36
requesting them to provide some demographic information along with information on their daily
37
38 cognitive demands, daydreaming activity, creativity, and performance. We retained for our
39
40 analysis 169 individuals (attrition rate = 22%) who had provided complete information for at
41
42
least two days. The majority of respondents had a college degree (98.2%) and described
43
44
45 themselves as professional employees (59.7%). Our sample consisted of technical employees
46
47 (5%), managers (13.2%), and supervisors (22%). The average age and tenure of respondents
48
49 were 33.85 years (SD = 6.31) and 3.9 years (SD = 1.67), respectively and 55.6% of our sample
50
51
52 were men. Respondents came from a diverse array of industries, such as service (26.4%),
53
54 production (3.1%), consulting (8.2%), commerce (10.1%), banking (12.6%), and others (39.6%).
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Measures
4
5 Daily cognitively demanding work. We measured daily variations in cognitively
6
7 demanding work with three items developed by Jackson et al. (1993) and used by Wall and
8
9
10 colleagues (1995; 1996), capturing attentional and problem-solving requirements at work
11
12 (Cronbach’s alpha = .78). On a response scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal),
13
14 employees indicated the extent to which statements, such as “Today, I came across problems I
15
16
17 have not seen before” were characteristic of their work on that particular day.
18
19 Daily problem-oriented and bizarre daydreams. To measure the two facets of
20
21 daydreams, we selected and adapted six items from those suggested by Singer and Antrobus
22
23
(1972). On a response scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal), employees indicated
24
25
26 the extent to which they have had daydreams of either the problem-oriented kind (“Today at
27
28 work, to what extent have you had daydreams closely related to the problems that you face”) or
29
30 of the bizarre kind (“Today at work, to what extent have you had thoughts about things that
31
32
33 could rarely occur in real life”). We averaged the three items capturing problem-oriented
34
35 daydreams (Cronbach’s alpha = .93) and those that measured bizarre daydreams (Cronbach’s
36
37 alpha = .92) to create two scale scores.
38
39
40 Daily creativity and performance. Our study required daily measures of creativity and
41
42 performance, which are largely inaccessible to others, given their day-to-day fluctuations
43
44 (Amabile et al., 2005). Hence, we asked respondents themselves to report on their daily creative
45
46
cognition and their daily performance efficiency.1 To measure daily creativity, we derived three
47
48
49 items based on the work by Amabile and colleagues (2005) (Cronbach’s alpha = .91). On a
50
51
52
53
54 1 Our measure of daily creativity is based upon respondents’ accounts of the extent to which they thought
55 about creative ideas on a given day. Asking respondents to self-report on their creative cognition represents a valid
56 indicator of creativity, particularly when assessed on a daily basis (Amabile et al., 2005).
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 response scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal), respondents indicated the extent to
4
5
6 which they had creative thoughts that day (“Today at work, to what extent did you think about
7
8 some new and helpful ideas;” “Today at work, to what extent did you think of a new and useful
9
10 solution to an existing problem;” “Today at work, to what extent did you think of a new
11
12
13
insight/creative idea”). To measure daily performance efficiency, we adapted three items based
14
15 on those used by Parke, Weinhardt, Brodsky, Tangirala, and DeVoe (2018) and developed by
16
17 Williams and Anderson (1991) (Cronbach’s alpha = .91). On a response scale ranging from 1
18
19
(not at all) to 5 (a great deal), employees indicated the extent to which they had performed their
20
21
22 work in an efficient manner that day (“Today at work, to what extent did you perform everything
23
24 that was expected of you efficiently;” “Today at work, to what extent did you complete
25
26 everything you were trying to accomplish as efficiently as possible;” “Today at work, to what
27
28
29 extent did you fulfill all the responsibilities of your job as efficiently as possible”).
30
31 Daily attention residue as control variable. To rule out the possibility that our effects are
32
33 due to the type of attention residue that is often associated with “multitasking” and “task-
34
35
36
switching,” we controlled for this variable in our analysis. To measure attention residue, we
37
38 developed three items based on the work by Leroy (2009) (Cronbach’s alpha = .86). On a
39
40 response scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal), employees indicated the extent to
41
42
which their thoughts were glued to an earlier task (“Today, while doing your work, to what
43
44
45 extent did thoughts of an earlier task keep creeping in;” “Today, while doing your work, to what
46
47 extent was your attention focused on a task you did earlier;” “Today, while doing your work, to
48
49 what extent couldn’t you let go of a task you were working on earlier”).
50
51
52 Analytic Strategy
53 To determine the robustness of the measurement model, we conducted confirmatory
54
55
56 factor analysis using Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). We calculated intra-class correlation
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 (ICC1) coefficients to estimate the proportion of within-subjects variability of the repeated
4
5
6 measures over time. Finally, we tested our hypotheses using multi-level structural equation
7
8 modeling using PROCESS in Mplus (Hayes, 2013; Stride, Gardner, Catley, & Thomas, 2015).
9
10 Results
11
12 Results of confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the hypothesized six-factor model
13
14 (i.e., daily cognitively demanding work, daily problem-oriented daydreams, daily bizarre
15
16
17 daydreams, daily creativity, daily performance, and daily attention residue) provided an
18
19 acceptable fit to the data (χ2120 = 157.59, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .02, SRMR = .03), lending
20
21 support to the validity of our measurement approach. We then compared this six-factor model to
22
23
a five-factor model in which the two daydreaming variables loaded onto the same factor. This
24
25
26 model offered a poor fit to the data (χ2125 = 1143.71, CFI = .83, RMSEA = .11, SRMR = .08)
27
28 and, as expected, fit the data significantly less well than the hypothesized five-factor model (Δχ25
29
30 = 986.12, p < .01).2 Thus, our measurement model appears to be supported by our data.
31
32
33 We also found that there was substantial within-person variability for daily cognitively
34
35 demanding work (61%), daily problem-oriented daydreams (48%), daily bizarre daydreams
36
37 (35%), daily creativity (44%), and daily performance (47%). This variability indicates the
38
39
40 suitability of multi-level modelling.
41
42
Insert Tables 1 and 2 about here
43
44
45 In Hypothesis 1 we proposed positive relations between cognitively demanding work and
46
47 the occurrence of daydreams. Results of multi-level structural equation modeling (Table 2,
48
49 Figure 1) provided support for positive relations between daily cognitively demanding work and
50
51
52
53
54 2 We also fitted a number of additional models to the data progressively reducing the number of factors on
55 which the observed variables were assumed to load. As expected, the six-factor model offered superior fit to all of
56 these alternative models (p < .01).
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 both daily problem-oriented daydreams (b = .30, p < .01) and daily bizarre daydreams (b = .10, p
4
5
6 < .05). These results are consistent with Hypothesis 1.
7
8 In Hypothesis 2 we specified positive associations between the occurrence of both facets
9
10 of daydreams and creativity. Results in Table 2 and Figure 1 revealed that daily problem-
11
12
13
oriented daydreams were indeed positively related to daily creativity (b = .23, p < .01). However,
14
15 the link between daily bizarre daydreams and daily creativity was not statistically significant (b =
16
17 .02, p > .05). Thus, Hypothesis 2 is partially supported.
18
19
Hypothesis 3 stated that there would be two indirect effects of cognitively demanding
20
21
22 work on creativity via the two daydreaming facets. Results (Table 2, Figure 1) revealed that daily
23
24 cognitively demanding work exerted an indirect effect on daily creativity via problem-oriented
25
26 daydreams (b = .07, p < .01). However, there was no statistically significant indirect effect of
27
28
29 daily cognitively demanding work on daily creativity via bizarre daydreams (b = .01, p > .05).
30
31 Thus, Hypothesis 3 is partially supported.
32
33 Results for daily performance provided support for the discriminant validity of our
34
35
36
model. Neither daily problem-oriented daydreams nor daily bizarre daydreams related
37
38 significantly to daily performance (ps > .05) and there were no significant indirect effects of
39
40 daily cognitively demanding work on daily performance via the two facets of daydreams (ps >
41
42
.05) (see Table 2, Figure 1).
43
44
45 Insert Figure 1 about here
46
47
48
Discussion
49 The results of Study 1 provide partial support for the proposed model: cognitively
50
51
52
demanding work gives rise to daydreams of the problem-oriented and the bizarre kind. Yet, only
53
54 problem-oriented daydreams produce daily changes in creativity; bizarre daydreams do not seem
55
56 to have any direct relationship with creativity—an issue we examine further in Study 2. In
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 addition, attention residue does not account for the effects of daydreaming activity on creativity.
4
5
6 Finally, our results for performance efficiency offer some evidence regarding the discriminant
7
8 validity of our model. Interestingly, contrary to previous work suggesting that daydreaming has
9
10 the potential to undermine performance, we find no evidence for such an effect in our sample.
11
12
13
To be sure, Study 1 has limitations. Given our interest in understanding within-person
14
15 variations with respect to the variables of interest, we relied on self-report data exclusively.
16
17 While concerns surrounding common methods have perhaps been overstated in the case of
18
19
research involving firsthand accounts of intrapsychic phenomena (Conway & Lance, 2010),
20
21
22 Study 1 is nevertheless subject to concerns surrounding the potential for common method bias.
23
24 Additionally, Study 1 was premised on the assumption that, like the occurrence and content of
25
26 one’s daydreams and one’s level of creative cognition, the cognitive demands associated with
27
28
29 one’s work can vary from one workday to the next (Breevaart & Bakker, 2018). While this
30
31 assumption was supported by the data we collected—57 percent of the variance in daily
32
33 cognitively demanding work was at the within-person level—it is also true that more generalized
34
35
36
features of one’s job and of one’s work environment operate at a between-person level, as they
37
38 represent the stable conditions and pressures that employees face and manage (Daniels, 2006).
39
40 Given its design, Study 1 cannot capture such generalized patterns. Study 2 overcomes these
41
42
limitations. As reported below, in Study 2 we sought to replicate the results of Study 1 in a
43
44
45 between-person design that featured creativity ratings provided by supervisors (thus addressing
46
47 the common method issue). We also tested the moderating role of professional identification.
48
49 STUDY 2
50
51 Sample and Procedure
52
53 Study 2 is a multisource survey study of three technology consulting companies.
54
55 Consulting companies in the technology sector are an ideal setting for two reasons. First, given
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 the speed of technological advance, individuals providing consulting services in this domain are
4
5
6 continuously confronted with problems they may never have seen before and that require new
7
8 solutions. In fact, offering creative solutions is precisely the reason why clients hire such
9
10 consultancies. Thus, creativity is an important part of this industry. Second, employees working
11
12
13
in the consulting industry typically identify not only with their organization but also with the
14
15 profession as a whole, and perhaps more strongly so (Johnson, Morgeson, Ilgen, Meyer, &
16
17 Lloyd, 2006). Our initial sample comprised all 186 employees of the three consulting companies
18
19
we approached. Respondents worked across a range of domains, including data management
20
21
22 (48.4%), information systems (22%), and education technology (29.6%).
23
24 We sent out links to an electronic survey to all employees in our sample as well as to
25
26 their supervisors. Employees provided demographic information and reported on the cognitive
27
28
29 demands of their work, their daydreams, and their professional identification. 117 respondents
30
31 completed the survey (response rate = 62.9%). The great majority of respondents had a college
32
33 degree (85.4%) and described themselves as professional employees (82.9%), either with or
34
35
36
without supervisory responsibility. The average age and tenure of respondents were 35.87 years
37
38 (SD = 8.64) and 3.17 years (SD = 3.00), respectively and 62.9% of our sample were women.
39
40 To reduce concerns regarding common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &
41
42
Podsakoff, 2012), we asked 56 supervisors to rate their employees’ creativity. Forty-six
43
44
45 supervisors followed our invitation for a response rate of 82.1 percent. On average, supervisors
46
47 rated 2.6 employees (SD = 1.54), and the size of the matched supervisor-employee sample was
48
49 117 (missing values reduced the number of usable observations to 114 for some variables).3
50
51
52
53
54
55 3The within organization response rates (employees & supervisors) were as follows: organization 1 (63.3%
56 & 82.8%), organization 2 (43.9% & 81.8%), and organization 3 (76.4% & 75%).
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Measures
4
5 Cognitively demanding work. Similar to Study 1, we measured this variable with items
6
7 based on those developed by Jackson et al. (1993) and used by Wall and colleagues (1995;
8
9
10 1996). As individuals did not need to complete this measure on a daily basis, we included three
11
12 additional items beyond the ones included in Study 1 (Cronbach’s alpha = .80). On a response
13
14 scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal), employees indicated the extent to which
15
16
17 statements, such as “Does your work need your undivided attention” were characteristic of their
18
19 current job.
20
21 Problem-oriented and bizarre daydreams. To measure the two facets of daydreams, we
22
23
selected 12 items from those suggested by Singer and Antrobus (1972). On a response scale
24
25
26 ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), employees indicated the extent to which
27
28 they agreed with statements, such as “My fantasies sometimes surprise me by suggesting an
29
30 answer to a work problem, which I could not work out” (problem-oriented daydreams) and “I
31
32
33 often have thoughts about things that could rarely occur in real life” (bizarre daydreams).
34
35 As described earlier, problem-oriented daydreams concern problems individuals are
36
37 facing in their lives. Given our interest in problem solving and creativity in people’s work lives,
38
39
40 all problem-oriented daydreaming items were worded in terms of “at work” (see the sample item
41
42 above). By contrast, bizarre daydreams do not directly concern problems individuals are
43
44 currently facing in life or at work. Yet, as theorized, such daydreams may, in some cases,
45
46
contribute to creativity at work, even though its content is bizarre and seemingly distinct from
47
48
49 work-related matters. Thus, we did not attach an “at work” qualifier to the bizarre daydreams
50
51 items. We averaged the six items capturing problem-oriented daydreams (Cronbach’s alpha =
52
53 .89) and those that measured bizarre daydreams (Cronbach’s alpha = .89).
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Professional identification. We measured individuals’ professional identification with
4
5
6 five items developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992) (Cronbach’s alpha = .76). Originally designed
7
8 to measure organizational identification, we replaced the placeholder in which the name of the
9
10 organization was inserted with the words “my profession” (cf. Hekman et al., 2009). We omitted
11
12
13
one item from the original six-item scale (“If a story in the media criticized my profession, I
14
15 would feel embarrassed.”) because our respondents had difficulty interpreting this item. On a
16
17 response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), employees indicated the
18
19
extent to which they agreed with statements such as “When someone criticizes my profession, it
20
21
22 feels like a personal insult.”
23
24 Creativity and performance. Supervisors rated their employees’ creativity and
25
26 performance using the items developed by Oldham and Cummings (1996). The creativity
27
28
29 measure is widely used (e.g., Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2009) and captures the extent to which
30
31 individuals’ work is both novel (truly original or adaptive) and useful. On a response scale
32
33 ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely), supervisors rated the extent to which statements such
34
35
36
as “How original and practical is this employee’s work?” were characteristic of work produced
37
38 by their employees (Cronbach’s alpha = .93). Supervisors also rated their employees in terms of
39
40 the effort they exerted and in terms of the quality and the quantity of their work. On a response
41
42
scale ranging from 1 (little/low/little) to 7 (extreme/very high/large), supervisors rated each
43
44
45 employee using items such as “Please rate the amount of effort employee puts into his/her work.
46
47 Effort does not refer to how well an employee does a job, but rather how hard he or she works on
48
49 the job.” (Cronbach’s alpha = .81).
50
51
52 Control variables. Given their potential to confound the hypothesized effects on
53
54 creativity (via daydreams), we controlled for the following variables: organizational membership
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 (dummy coded variables) as different organizations may have different expectations for
4
5
6 creativity or norms tolerant of employees engaging in daydreaming, education (0 = no college; 1
7
8 = college-educated) as education can serve to approximate domain relevant knowledge which is
9
10 likely to advantage both daydreaming and creativity, and tenure (years) and age (years) as both
11
12
13
are likely to curtail the amount of creativity and daydreaming individuals are likely to engage in
14
15 and to report (e.g., Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Unsworth, Wall, & Carter, 2005).
16
17 Analytic Strategy
18
19 First, to establish the robustness of our measurement model, we estimated a series of
20
21 confirmatory factor analyses utilizing Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). Second, given the
22
23
nested structure of our data (employees nested in supervisors), we used multilevel structural
24
25
26 equation modeling (path analysis) using Mplus, following Preacher, Zyphur, and Zhang (2010).
27
28 To evaluate the unconditional and conditional indirect effects models, we supplemented this
29
30 approach with the PROCESS models (Hayes, 2013, Stride et al., 2015). We first tested our non-
31
32
33 moderated indirect effects hypotheses (Hypotheses 1 through 3). We then estimated a conditional
34
35 indirect effects model, in which professional identification was expected to simultaneously
36
37 moderate the links between problem-oriented / bizarre daydreams and creativity (Hypothesis 4)
38
39
40 (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007).
41
42 Results
43
44 This hypothesized five-factor model (i.e., cognitively demanding work, problem-oriented
45
46 daydreams, bizarre daydreams, professional identification, creativity) provided an acceptable fit
47
48 to the data (χ2289 = 388.29, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .07), lending support to the
49
50
51
validity of our measurement approach. We then compared this five-factor model to a four-factor
52
53 model in which the two daydreaming variables loaded onto the same factor. This model offered a
54
55 poor fit to the data (χ2293 = 727.41, CFI = .68, RMSEA = .11, SRMR = .13) and, as expected, fit
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 the data significantly less well than the hypothesized five-factor model (Δχ24 = 339.12, p < .01)4.
4
5
6 Thus, overall, our measurement model appears to be supported by our data.
7
8 Results of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no significant differences in
9
10 daydreams and creativity for organizational membership (.41 ≤ Fs ≤ 1.43, ps > .05) and
11
12
13
education (.57 ≤ Fs ≤ 3.09, ps > .05). In addition, there were no significant correlations between
14
15 tenure and age, on the one hand, and facet of daydream and creativity on the other (–.18 ≤ rs ≤
16
17 .10, ps > .05) (see Table 3). Given these results, we ran our models with and without these
18
19
control variables and observed no substantive differences between them (we present the results
20
21
22 excluding control variables for reasons of parsimony).
23
24
25 Insert Tables 3 and 4 about here
26
27 The full path model is depicted in Figure 2. In Hypothesis 1 we proposed positive
28
29 relations between the extent to which individuals are engaged in cognitively demanding work
30
31 and the emergence of daydreams of either facet. Results of our path analysis are consistent with
32
33
34 our hypothesis (see Table 4, Model 1). Cognitively demanding work related positively both to
35
36 problem-oriented (b = .48, p < .01) and bizarre (b = .32, p < .05) daydreams.
37
38 In Hypothesis 2 we specified positive associations between both facets of daydreams and
39
40
41 creativity. Results in Table 4 (Model 1) revealed that problem-oriented daydreams were indeed
42
43 positively related to creativity (b = .18, p < .01). However, the link between bizarre daydreams
44
45 and creativity was nonsignificant (b = .07, p > .05). Thus, Hypothesis 2 is partially supported.
46
47
48
Hypothesis 3 stated that there would be two indirect effects of cognitively demanding
49
50 work on creativity via problem-oriented and bizarre daydreams. Results (Table 4, Model 1)
51
52
53
54 4 We also fitted a number of additional models to the data progressively reducing the number of factors on
55 which the observed variables were assumed to load. As expected, the five-factor model offered superior fit to all of
56 these alternative models (p < .01).
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 revealed that cognitively demanding work exerted an indirect effect on creativity via problem-
4
5
6 oriented daydreams (b = .09, p < .05). There was no statistically significant indirect effect of
7
8 cognitively demanding work on creativity via bizarre daydreams (b = .02, p > .05), however.
9
10 Thus, Hypothesis 3 is partially supported.
11
12
13
Hypothesis 4 stated that the indirect effects of cognitively demanding work on creativity
14
15 via problem-oriented and bizarre daydreams would be stronger when professional identification
16
17 is high as opposed to when it is low. Results for the relevant path model (Table 4, Model 2)
18
19
revealed that the interaction between problem-oriented daydreams and professional identification
20
21
22 was positively related to creativity (b = .12, p < .05), such that there was a statistically significant
23
24 positive relation between problem-oriented daydreams and creativity when identification was
25
26 high, (b = .31, p < .01) but not when it was low (b = .00, p > .05) (Figure 3). Additionally, results
27
28
29 indicated that the indirect effect of cognitively demanding work on creativity via problem-
30
31 oriented daydreams was positive and statistically significant when professional identification was
32
33 high (b = .14, p < .05), but not when it was low (b = .01, p > .05). Results (Table 4, Model 2)
34
35
36
also revealed that the interaction between bizarre daydreams and professional identification was
37
38 positively related to creativity (b = .09, p = .06) albeit only marginally so, such that there was a
39
40 statistically significant positive relation between bizarre daydreams and creativity when
41
42
identification was high, (b = .21, p < .01) but a nonsignificant negative relation when
43
44
45 identification was low (b = –.06, p > .05) (Figure 4). Consistent with expectations, the indirect
46
47 effect of cognitively demanding work on creativity via bizarre daydreams was positive and
48
49 marginally statistically significant when professional identification was high (b = .06, p = .10),
50
51
52 but not when it was low (b = .01, p > .05). Overall, then, Hypothesis 4 is partially supported.
53
54
55
Insert Figures 2, 3, & 4 about here
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 As in Study 1, neither problem-oriented nor bizarre daydreams related significantly to
4
5
6 performance (ps > .05). However, our analysis did reveal two statistically significant
7
8 interactions. The interaction between problem-oriented daydreams and professional
9
10 identification was statistically significantly related to performance (b = .13, p < .01), such that
11
12
13
there was no significant relation between problem-oriented daydreams and performance when
14
15 identification was high (b = .10, p > .05) but a negative relation when it was low (b = –.17, p <
16
17 .05) (Figure 5). Results also revealed that the interaction between bizarre daydreams and
18
19
professional identification was statistically significantly related to performance (b = .12, p = .01),
20
21
22 such that there was a significant positive relation between bizarre daydreams and performance
23
24 when identification was high, (b = .13, p < .05) and a significant negative relation when
25
26 identification was low (b = –.08, p < .05) (Figure 6).
27
28
29 Insert Figures 5 & 6 about here
30
31 Discussion
32
33 Our second study replicates and extends Study 1. Here again, we find support for the
34
35 claim that cognitively demanding work gives rise to both problem-oriented and bizarre
36
37 daydreams. Such daydreams, in turn, can enhance creativity, particularly when individuals are
38
39
40
highly identified with their profession. Consistent with our arguments, one pathway by which
41
42 cognitively demanding work drives creativity is via daydreaming, although this indirect effect is
43
44 only significant for problem-oriented daydreams. Bizarre daydreams do not seem to transmit the
45
46
effect of cognitively demanding work on creativity, although they do enhance the creativity of
47
48
49 individuals who are strongly identified with their professions.
50
51 The results of our second study revealed that daydreams also have implications for
52
53 performance. Contrary to our initial assumption, daydreams are not necessarily detrimental to
54
55
56 performance. However, for people who lack professional identification, both problem-oriented
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 and bizarre daydreams compromise performance. Thus, the effects of daydreams on creativity
4
5
6 and performance diverge notably. Whereas problem-oriented and bizarre daydreams have no
7
8 downsides for creativity, even when professional identification is low, the same is not true for
9
10 performance. Here, daydreams show their dark side, as they compromise performance when
11
12
13
identification is low while offering only very limited upsides when it is high. In essence,
14
15 daydreams can spur creativity but can also jeopardize performance.
16
17 GENERAL DISCUSSION
18
19 In work settings and throughout many other domains of life, daydreaming has a negative
20
21 connotation. Who cannot recall a situation when drifting off into another world was met by
22
23
others with disappointment or disproval? Nevertheless, daydreaming may carry underappreciated
24
25
26 benefits—and the purpose of our research was to evaluate this possibility. Specifically, we
27
28 evaluated whether certain facets of daydreams offer creative benefits (while potentially
29
30 compromising performance). In addition, we examined whether a key feature of work in today’s
31
32
33 knowledge economy gives rise to daydreams of different facets as well as the circumstance under
34
35 which daydreams are most likely to stimulate creativity.
36
37 We find that daydreams do indeed carry benefits for creativity. At the same time, our
38
39
40 findings point to nuances. For example, while we observed a direct effect of problem-oriented
41
42 daydreams on creativity, bizarre daydreams do not seem to directly stimulate creativity—neither
43
44 on a day-to-day basis (Study 1) nor when evaluated at a more generalized level (Study 2).
45
46
Perhaps we should have expected this finding. After all, our theorizing suggested that bizarre
47
48
49 daydreams contribute to creativity more indirectly—via problem identification and the
50
51 generation of ideas for which an immediate use may not be available.
52
53 We also find that the effects of daydreams on creativity are moderated by professional
54
55
56 identification (Study 2). Daydreams seem to be of greater creative utility to those who are
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 strongly identified with their profession. In such circumstances, individuals may be more open to
4
5
6 considering the content of their daydreams as potential sources of inspiration for their work.
7
8 They may also be more determined in harnessing the power of their daydreams.
9
10 In contrast to the effects of both daydreaming facets on creativity, which seem to have no
11
12
13
downsides for creativity, even among those who lack professional identification, daydreaming
14
15 can have significant disadvantages when it comes to performance. Although the extent to which
16
17 people engage in daydreaming of either facet does not have direct implications for performance
18
19
(Studies 1 & 2), individuals who lack professional identification and who report engaging in
20
21
22 daydreaming tend to exhibit lower performance (Study 2)—a finding that is consistent with prior
23
24 research (Randall et al., 2014). Given that creativity is seldom the dominant dimension
25
26 associated with an employee’s job performance (even in jobs in which creativity is desired), the
27
28
29 costs of drifting off into another world without being able to capitalize on one’s daydreams are
30
31 most likely to be reflected in one’s traditional performance ratings. In addition, daydreams seem
32
33 to have limited utility for performance even among those who are strongly identified with their
34
35
36
profession, with the exception of bizarre daydreams. Possibly, then, one of the potential benefits
37
38 of such daydreams—problem formulation—has wider utility than we initially assumed and can
39
40 serve to boost individuals’ performance in a broader sense. Regardless, it is safe to say that when
41
42
people are not professional identified (or when the conditions that signify professional work
43
44
45 more generally, such as autonomy and meaning, are absent) and creativity is not a key dimension
46
47 of performance, daydreaming is unlikely to carry any benefits at work.
48
49 Both facets of daydreams examined appear to arise from engaging in cognitively
50
51
52 demanding work. As it appears, such work entices the mind to wander to imaginative content
53
54 and imagery, in some cases, perhaps, due to the stimulating effect of such work on the mind and,
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 in other cases, to allow individuals to escape the demands of the moment. And to the extent that
4
5
6 cognitively demanding work produces problem-oriented daydreams, it indirectly impacts
7
8 creativity, particularly when professional identification is high. The same is true for bizarre
9
10 daydreams to some extent. While they arise in response to cognitively demanding work, the
11
12
13
strength with which bizarre daydreams transmit the effect of cognitively demanding work onto
14
15 creativity under conditions of high identification is lower. This is likely due to the more
16
17 complicated and delicate relationship between bizarre daydreaming and creativity.
18
19
Theoretical Implications
20
21 Our work has some clear theoretical implications. First, research in the laboratory and
22
23
field points to the performance-related risks of mind wandering (Randall et al., 2014). Some
24
25
26 have even classified mind wandering as a counterproductive work behavior (Bennett &
27
28 Robinson, 2000). Our findings provide cause to reconsider the view that mind wandering is
29
30 necessarily problematic by revealing the creativity-related benefits of daydreaming—a particular
31
32
33 form of mind wandering involving imagination (Dane, 2018). Given the right circumstances—
34
35 highly identified professionals dealing with cognitively demanding situations and problems—
36
37 daydreams may constitute a valuable source of creative inspiration. Our theoretical contribution
38
39
40 is not only that we cast daydreams in a new light but also that we identify specific facets of
41
42 daydreams conducive to creativity. Both problem-oriented and bizarre daydreams can boost the
43
44 creativity of professionally identified individuals. Thus, our findings illuminate the beneficial
45
46
effects of daydreaming in general and problem-oriented and bizarre daydreams in particular. Our
47
48
49 research therefore provides empirical support for Dane’s (2018) claim that, when it involves
50
51 certain facets of content, imaginative mind wandering (i.e., daydreaming) can foster creative
52
53 problem solving in organizations. Moreover, our research extends beyond Dane’s (2018)
54
55
56 theorizing by placing creativity, as opposed to task performance, front-and-center.
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Naturally, we do not wish to suggest that daydreaming should always be expected to have
4
5
6 beneficial consequences. While daydreaming can produce some new and useful ideas, losing
7
8 touch with the moment at hand (either through daydreaming or other categories of mind
9
10 wandering, such as thinking about the past and the future) can indeed undermine other forms of
11
12
13
performance, especially in high reliability contexts (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). Thus, to evaluate
14
15 properly the costs and benefits of daydreaming, one has to consider the extent to which creativity
16
17 is in fact a desirable outcome in one’s job role and evaluate its relevance relative to other forms
18
19
of task performance. So too should one consider the extent to which employees identify with
20
21
22 their profession, such that they take pride in their craft and are motivated to improve it by finding
23
24 new ways of seeing things (Tierney, 2015). Indeed, the results of our second study indicate that
25
26 daydreaming among those who lack professional identification is not beneficial for creativity and
27
28
29 can hinder overall performance.
30
31 A second theoretical contribution of our work is that we identify daydreams as a vehicle
32
33 that gives rise to creative ideas. Our work provides insight into the very process of creativity
34
35
36
itself by pointing toward a psychological phenomenon—daydreams—through which the
37
38 processes associated with creativity (e.g., divergent thinking, associative thinking) are especially
39
40 apt to occur. In this way, our research begins to address scholarly appeals to illuminate the ways
41
42
in which new ideas emerge. Although recent advances in technology, such as fMRI, have
43
44
45 resulted in a surge of studies on the “creative brain,” this work continues to evolve (see Beaty,
46
47 Benedek, Silvia, & Schacter, 2016). It may be worth extending research on the neurological
48
49 activities and cognitive processes associated with mind wandering in general and daydreaming in
50
51
52 particular (e.g., Mason et al., 2007) to unpack the neural substrates of creative cognition.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 The results of our study also reveal a key boundary condition of the effects of
4
5
6 daydreams—identification with one’s profession. Specifically, our research suggests that the
7
8 effects of daydreaming content on both creativity and performance are shaped by how people
9
10 engage with the content of their daydreams (as determined by professional identification). By
11
12
13
implication, then, the same type of daydream might, for one individual, inform and advance
14
15 creative problem solving and, for another, be perceived as relatively useless or meaningless in
16
17 this regard. As such, in exploring the nature and outcomes of daydreaming content, it is critical
18
19
for scholars to account for the role of identity and identification.
20
21
22 Our findings lend credibility to the view that cognitively demanding work triggers
23
24 daydreaming. Whereas previous research and broader accounts in society have often associated
25
26 mind wandering with undemanding work,5 our findings suggest that daydreams can be sparked
27
28
29 by cognitively demanding work—and serve as a refuge from it. It is not a stretch to assume that
30
31 other mind wandering activities, for example, reminding oneself of uncompleted goals or
32
33 engaging in mental time travel may also be stimulated by cognitively demanding work. If this is
34
35
36
the case, researchers should incorporate mind wandering as an explicit element in models such as
37
38 the job demands-resources model (e.g., Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001),
39
40 perhaps as a mediating mechanism or an underappreciated resource.
41
42
Finally, our research provides a potential counterpoint to a groundswell of claims and
43
44
45 concerns that workers are finding it increasingly difficult to focus their attention in a world full
46
47 of distractions (Carr, 2011; Gazzaley & Rosen, 2016; Newport, 2019). To be sure, digital devices
48
49
50
51
52 5 Consider, for example, these lyrics from the moving though melancholy song Millworker, written by
53 James Taylor: “Now my mind begins to wander/To the days back on the farm/I can see my father smiling at
54 me/Swinging on his arm/I can hear my granddad’s stories/Of the storms out on Lake Erie/Where vessels and cargos
55 and fortunes/And sailors’ lives were lost/But my life has been wasted/And I have been the fool/To let this
56 manufacturer/Use my body for a tool.”
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 and other technological sources of distraction can significantly compromise workers’ attention
4
5
6 and can even prove addictive (Alter, 2017). At the same time, it is important not to conflate the
7
8 proliferation of potential distractors in work settings with the natural tendency of the human
9
10 mind to wander and to daydream. Even in a work setting unencumbered by distractions, a
11
12
13
worker’s mind is likely to stray at times from the task at hand and venture into imaginative
14
15 realms. To chide this worker for becoming “distracted” is not only to confuse one concept with
16
17 another; it is also to render critique upon a phenomenon—daydreaming—that can be remarkably
18
19
useful from a creativity standpoint.
20
21
22 Limitations and Avenues for Future Research
23
Our work is not without limitations. First, our two studies do not allow us to determine
24
25
26 the casual ordering of the hypothesized relations. In our model, we suggested that cognitively
27
28 demanding work makes it more likely that individuals will engage in the two facets of
29
30 daydreams discussed here. Such daydreaming, in turn, stimulates creativity, particularly for
31
32
33 individuals who identify with their profession. However, it is conceivable that creative
34
35 individuals feel a greater license to daydream or, at the very least, to report such activity. Our
36
37 design does not allow us to rule out this possibility. Through future research, scholars could
38
39
40 address such issues by examining daydreaming in the workplace through an experimental design.
41
42 Second, our research focused on behavioral and cognitive tendencies at a daily level
43
44 (Study 1) and a generalized level (Study 2), as opposed to specific moments or occasions giving
45
46
rise to certain facets of daydreams. Through future research, scholars could examine the relations
47
48
49 specified here at an episodic level by employing more precise experience sampling techniques
50
51 (see Smallwood & Schooler, 2015). In the same way, scholars could assess other dynamics of
52
53 daydreaming. It might be the case, for example, that bizarre daydreams can evolve into problem-
54
55
56 oriented daydreams—or vice versa—during a single mind wandering episode. A fine-grained
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 methodological lens would be required to document such possibilities and examine their
4
5
6 interplay with creativity and other aspects of job performance as well (see Dane, 2018).
7
8 Third, the research model tested here calls for further investigation and validation. In
9
10 particular, scholars could empirically assess the mechanisms whereby cognitively demanding
11
12
13
work relates to problem-oriented and bizarre daydreams, respectively. For example, we argued
14
15 that cognitively demanding work relates to bizarre daydreams via “mental escape.” This
16
17 possibility merits empirical testing. In addition, although we argued that both facets of
18
19
daydreams operate via different theoretical mechanisms—idea generation versus
20
21
22 problem/opportunity identification—we did not empirically capture these nuances. Scholars
23
24 could address this issue by examining whether the two daydreaming facets differentially relate to
25
26 different stages of the creative process or to different forms of creativity, such as those suggested
27
28
29 by Unsworth (2001): expected, proactive, responsive and contributory. For instance, given our
30
31 arguments, it stands to reason that problem-oriented daydreams are more likely to stimulate
32
33 contributory creativity while bizarre daydreams are more likely to stimulate proactive creativity.
34
35
36
Alternatively, future work could examine the effects of the two daydreaming facets on
37
38 “incremental” versus “radical” creativity (see Madjar et al., 2011). If our logic is correct, we
39
40 would expect bizarre daydreams (as opposed to problem-oriented daydreams) to more strongly
41
42
relate to radical creativity. Such creativity involves a departure from existing norms or practices
43
44
45 that is unorthodox enough to upend the status quo (Venkataramani, Richter, & Clarke, 2014).
46
47 Managerial Implications
48
49 The managerial implications of our work are straightforward: daydreams have certain
50
51 upsides. Straightforward as this may seem, it may also be counterintuitive to some managers,
52
53 given the negative connotations surrounding daydreaming in the workplace. Although we do not
54
55
56 wish to oversell the potential benefits of daydreams, organizations interested in encouraging
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 creativity should provide their employees greater license to daydream. As previously noted, the
4
5
6 human mind generally wanders nearly half of its waking hours (Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010).
7
8 Removing the stigma associated with daydreaming—perhaps by cultivating greater
9
10 psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999) when it comes to discussing this phenomenon in work
11
12
13
teams—may be a critical step toward this end. Destigmatizing daydreaming may allow
14
15 individuals to harness the creative benefits of their daydreams by engaging in this activity with
16
17 less self-judgment and sharing ideas emerging from daydreaming less reluctantly. Perhaps, then,
18
19
the next time a coworker shares the bizarre musings of his or her mind with us, we will be less
20
21
22 likely to dismiss them as a waste of time but see them for what they are—the mind’s way of
23
24 creating something new and potentially useful.
25
26 CONCLUSION
27
28 In line with the quote that opens this manuscript, we suspect that in reading this paper
29
30 your attention occasionally drifted away from this paper’s arguments, hypotheses, and results
31
32
33 and ventured toward other targets unrelated to the words before you. That’s fine with us. After
34
35 all, through this mind wandering, you may have engaged in daydreaming and, in doing so,
36
37 generated creative solutions to problems you have been working on—or conceived of brand new
38
39
40 problems worth solving. Just as authors should not expect readers’ undivided attention, it is both
41
42 unrealistic and ill-advisable for managers to expect employees to focus unflinchingly on their
43
44 work tasks. To do so would be to protest a core aspect of inner life itself: the mind’s tendency to
45
46
wander away from present moment events and imagine novel possibilities. In taking note of the
47
48
49 unappreciated benefits of daydreaming, managers and management scholars can perceive the
50
51 phenomenon more clearly for what it is—a foundational aspect of human cognition that carries
52
53 the potential to spur creative ideas.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 REFERENCES
4
5 Alter, A. 2017. Irresistible: The rise of addictive technology and the business of keeping us
6 hooked. New York: Penguin.
7 Alzahabi, R., & Becker, M. W. 2013. The association between media multitasking, task-
8
9
switching, and dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
10 Perception and Performance, 39: 1485–1495.
11 Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. 2005. Affect and creativity at
12 work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 367–403.
13 Aronson, E. 1992. The social animal (6th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
14 Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2008. Identification in organizations: An
15
examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34: 325–374.
16
17 Baer, M., Dirks, K. T., & Nickerson, J. A. 2013. Microfoundations of strategic problem
18 formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34: 197–214.
19 Baird, B., Smallwood, J., Mrazek, M. D., Kam, J. W. Y., Franklin, M. S., & Schooler, J. W.
20 2012. Inspired by distraction: Mind wandering facilitates creative incubation. Psychological
21 Science, 23: 1117–1122.
22 Baird, B., Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. 2011. Back to the future: Autobiographical planning
23
and the functionality of mind-wandering. Consciousness and Cognition, 20: 1604–1611.
24
25 Bazerman, M. H. 2014. The power of noticing: What the best leaders see. New York: Simon &
26 Schuster.
27 Beaty, R. E., Benedek, M., Silvia, P. J., & Schacter, D. L. 2016. Creative cognition and brain
28 network dynamics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20: 87–95.
29 Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. 2000. Development of a measure of workplace deviance.
30 Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 349–360.
31
32
Beyer, J. M., Chattopadhyay, P., George, E., Glick, W. H., Ogilvie, D. T., & Pugliese, D. 1997.
33 The selective perception of managers revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 40:
34 716–737.
35 Breevaart, K., & Bakker, A. B. 2018. Daily job demands and employee work engagement: The
36 role of daily transformational leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health
37 Psychology, 23: 338–349.
38
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. 1996. Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self
39
40 representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 83–93.
41 Carr, N. 2011. The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brain. New York: W. W. Norton
42 & Company.
43 Chabris, C., & Simons, D. 2010. The invisible gorilla: And other ways our intuitions deceive
44 us. New York: Crown.
45 Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. 2011. Work engagement: A quantitative review
46
and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64:
47
48 89–136.
49 Christoff, K., Gordon, A. M., Smallwood, J., Smith, R., & Schooler, J. W. 2009. Experience
50 sampling during fMRI reveals default network and executive system contributions to mind
51 wandering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106: 8719–8724.
52 Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. 2010. What reviewers should expect from authors regarding
53 common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25:
54
55
325–334.
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Crawford, H. J. 1982. Hypnotizability, daydreaming styles, imagery vividness, and absorption: A
4
5
multidimensional study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42: 915–926.
6 Cross, S. E., Gore, J. S., & Morris, M. L. 2003. The relational-interdependent self-construal, self-
7 concept consistency, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85:
8 933–944.
9 Dane, E. 2018. Where is my mind? Theorizing mind wandering and its performance-related
10 consequences in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 43: 179–197.
11
Daniels, K. 2006. Rethinking job characteristics in work stress research. Human Relations, 59:
12
13
267–290.
14 De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. 2008. Hedonic tone and activation level in the
15 mood–creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality
16 and Social Psychology, 94: 739–756.
17 Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F. & Schaufeli, W. B. 2001. The job demands-
18 resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 499–512.
19
Drucker, P. F. 1959. Landmarks of tomorrow. New York: Harper & Row.
20
21 Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative
22 Science Quarterly, 44: 350–383.
23 Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. 2007. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A
24 general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12: 1–
25 22.
26 Ehn, B. & Löfgren, O. 2010. The secret world of doing nothing. Berkeley, CA: University of
27
28
California Press.
29 Fraher, A. L., & Gabriel, Y. 2014. Dreaming of flying when grounded: Occupational identity and
30 occupational fantasies of furloughed airline pilots. Journal of Management Studies, 51:
31 926–951.
32 Gable, S. L., Hopper, E. A., & Schooler, J. W. 2019. When the muses strike: Creative ideas of
33 physicists and writers routinely occur during mind wandering. Psychological Science, 30:
34
396–404.
35
36
Gazzaley, A., & Rosen, L. D. 2016. The distracted mind: Ancient brains in a high-tech world.
37 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38 Giambra, L. M. 1974. Daydreaming across the life span: Late adolescent to senior citizen. The
39 International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 5: 115–140.
40 Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. 1996. Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking
41 during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 370–403.
42
Goldman-Schuyler, K., Skjei, S., Sanzgiri, J., & Koskela, V. (2017). “Moments of waking up”:
43
44 A doorway to mindfulness and presence. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26: 86–100.
45 Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. 2007. A new model of work role performance: Positive
46 behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50:
47 327–347.
48 Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. 1954. They saw a game; a case study. The Journal of Abnormal
49 and Social Psychology, 49: 129–134.
50
51
Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
52 regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.
53 Hekman, D. R., Steensma, H. K., Bigley, G. A., & Hereford, J. F. 2009. Effects of organizational
54 and professional identification on the relationship between administrators’ social influence
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 and professional employees’ adoption of new work behavior. Journal of Applied
4
5
Psychology, 94: 1325–1335.
6 Hennessey, B. A., Amabile, T. A. 2010. Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61: 569–598.
7 Hirst, G., van Dick, R., & van Knippenberg, D. 2009. A social identity perspective on leadership
8 and employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 963–982.
9 Jackson, P. R., Wall, T. D., Martin, R., & Davids, K. 1993. New measures of job control,
10 cognitive demand, and product responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 753–762.
11
Johnson, M. D., Morgeson, F. P., Ilgen, D. R., Meyer, C. J., & Lloyd, J. W. 2006. Multiple
12
13
professional identities: Examining differences in identification across work-related targets.
14 Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 498–506.
15 Kane, M. J., Brown, L. H., McVay, J. C., Silvia, P. J., Myin-Germeys, I., & Kwapil, T. R. 2007.
16 For whom the mind wanders, and when: An experience-sampling study of working memory
17 and executive control in daily life. Psychological Science, 18: 614–621.
18 Kane, M. J., Gross, G. M., Chun, C. A., Smeekens, B. A., Meier, M. E., Silvia, P. J., & Kwapil,
19
T. R. 2017. For whom the mind wanders, and when, varies across laboratory and daily-life
20
21 settings. Psychological Science, 28: 1271–1289.
22 Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilbert, D. T. 2010. A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science,
23 330: 932.
24 Klinger, E. 2009. Daydreaming and fantasizing: Thought flow and motivation. In K. D.
25 Markman, W. M. P. Klein, & J. A. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental
26 simulation: 225–239. New York: Psychology Press.
27
28
Knoblich, G., & Oellinger, M. 2006. Aha! The eureka moment. Scientific American Mind, 17:
29 38–43.
30 Leroy, S. 2009. Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when
31 switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
32 109: 168–181.
33 Leszczynski, M., Chaieb, L., Reber, T. P., Derner, M., Axmacher, N., & Fell, J. 2017. Mind
34
wandering simultaneously prolongs reactions and promotes creative incubation. Scientific
35
36
Reports, 7: 10197.
37 Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. 2011. Factors for radical creativity, incremental
38 creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 730–
39 743.
40 Madrid, H. P., Patterson, M. G., & Birdi, K. S., Leiva, P. I., & Kausel, E. E. 2014. The role of
41 weekly high-activated positive mood, context, and personality in innovative work behavior:
42
A multilevel and interactional model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35: 234–256.
43
44 Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated
45 model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 103–123.
46 Mainemelis, C., & Ronson, S. 2006. Ideas are born in fields of play: Towards a theory of play
47 and creativity in organizational settings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27: 81–131.
48 Maitlis, S., & Sonenshein, S. 2010. Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights
49 from Weick (1988). Journal of Management Studies, 47: 551–580.
50
51
March, J. G. 1994. A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: Free
52 Press.
53 Markey, F. V. 1935. Imagination. Psychological Bulletin, 32: 212–236.
54 Markus, H. 1977. Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of
55 Personality and Social Psychology, 35: 63–78.
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Mason, M. F., Brown, K., Mar, R. A., & Smallwood, J. 2013. Driver of discontent or escape
4
5
vehicle: The affective consequences of mindwandering. Frontiers in Psychology, 4: 1–12.
6 Mason, M. F., Norton, M. I., Van Horn, J. D., Wegner, D. M., Grafton, S. T., & Macrae, C. N.
7 2007. Wandering minds: The default network and stimulus-independent thought. Science,
8 315: 393–395.
9 Mason, M. F., & Reinholtz, N. 2015. Avenues down which a self-reminding mind can wander.
10 Motivation Science, 1: 1–21.
11
McMillan, R. L., Kaufman, S. B., & Singer, J. L. 2013. Ode to positive constructive
12
13
daydreaming. Frontiers in Psychology, 4: 626.
14 McVay, J. C., Kane, M. J., & Kwapil, T. R. 2009. Tracking the train of thought from the
15 laboratory into everyday life: An experience-sampling study of mind wandering across
16 controlled and ecological contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16: 857–863.
17 Merckelbach, H., Horselenberg, R., & Muris, P. 2001. The Creative Experiences Questionnaire
18 (CEQ): A brief self–report measure of fantasy proneness. Personality and Individual
19
Differences, 31: 987–995.
20
21 Merlo, K. L., Wiegand, K. E., Shaughnessy, S. P., Kuykendall, L. E., & Weiss, H. M. 2019. A
22 qualitative study of daydreaming episodes at work. Journal of Business and Psychology.
23 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10869-018-9611-4
24 Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. 1988. Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and
25 innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 27–43.
26 Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. 2010. Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
27
28
Newport, C. 2019. Digital minimalism: Choosing a focused life in a noisy world. New York:
29 Portfolio / Penguin.
30 Obodaru, O. 2012. The self not taken: How alternative selves develop and how they influence
31 our professional lives. Academy of Management Review, 37: 34–57.
32 Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. 2010. Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive
33 behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 543–565.
34
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. 1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at
35
36
work. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 607–634.
37 Parke, M. R., Weinhardt, J. M., Brodsky, A., Tangirala, S., & DeVoe, S. E. 2018. When daily
38 planning improves employee performance: The importance of planning type, engagement,
39 and interruptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103: 300–312.
40 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2012. Sources of method bias in social
41 science research and Recommendations on how to control it. In S. T. Fiske, D. L. Schacter,
42
& S. E. Taylor (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 63: 539–569. Palo Alto: Annual
43
44 Reviews.
45 Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. 2004. The knowledge economy. Annual Review of Sociology,
46 30: 199–220.
47 Pratt, M. G. 2000. The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among
48 Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 456–493.
49 Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. 2006. Constructing professional identity: The
50
51
role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical
52 residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 235–262.
53 Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. 2007. Addressing moderated mediation
54 hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42:
55 185–227.
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. 2010. A general multilevel SEM framework for
4
5
assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15: 209–233.
6 Randall, J. G., Oswald, F. L., & Beier, M. E. 2014. Mind-wandering, cognition, and
7 performance: A theory-driven meta-analysis of attention regulation. Psychological Bulletin,
8 140: 1411–1431.
9 Robertson, I. H., Manly, T., Andrade, J., Baddeley, B. T., & Yield, J. 1997. ‘Oops!’:
10 Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal
11
subjects. Neuropsychologia, 35: 747–758.
12
13
Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. 2008. Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent
14 multitasking. Psychological Review, 115: 101–130.
15 Schooler, J. W., Smallwood, J., Christoff, K., Handy, T. C., Reichle, E. D., & Sayette, M. A.
16 2011. Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind. Trends in Cognitive
17 Sciences, 15: 319–326.
18 Schupak, C., & Rosenthal, J. 2009. Excessive daydreaming: A case history and discussion of
19
mind wandering and high fantasy proneness. Consciousness and Cognition, 18: 290–292.
20
21 Seligman, M. E. P., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., & Sripada, C. 2013. Navigating into the future
22 or driven by the past. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8: 119–141.
23 Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. 2009. Interactive effects of growth need strength,
24 work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of
25 Management Journal, 52: 489–505.
26 Singer, J. L. 1966. Daydreaming: An introduction to the experimental study of inner
27
28
experience. New York: Random House.
29 Singer, J. L. 1975. Navigating the stream of consciousness: Research in daydreaming and related
30 inner experience. American Psychologist, 30: 727–738.
31 Singer, J. L., & Antrobus, J. S. 1972. Daydreaming, imaginal processes, and personality: A
32 normative study. In P. W. Sheenen (Ed.), The function and nature of imagery: 175–202.
33 New York: Academic Press.
34
Smallwood, J., Fishman, D. J., & Schooler, J. W. 2007. Counting the cost of an absent mind:
35
36
Mind wandering as an underrecognized influence on educational performance.
37 Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14: 230–236.
38 Smallwood, J., McSpadden, M., & Schooler, J. W. 2008. When attention matters: The curious
39 incident of the wandering mind. Memory & Cognition, 36: 1144–1150.
40 Smallwood, J., Mrazek, M. D., & Schooler, J. W. 2011. Medicine for the wandering mind: Mind
41 wandering in medical practice. Medical Education, 45: 1072–1080.
42
Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. 2006. The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132: 946–
43
44 958.
45 Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. 2015. The science of mind wandering: Empirically navigating
46 the stream of consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology, 66: 487–518.
47 Stride, C. B., Gardner, S., Catley, N., & Thomas, F. 2015. Mplus code for mediation,
48 moderation, and moderated mediation models. Retrieved from
49 http://www.offbeat.group.shef.ac.uk/FIO/mplusmedmod.htm
50
51
Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. 2007. The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel,
52 and is it unique to humans? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30: 299–313.
53 Tadić, M., Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. G. M. 2015. Challenge versus hindrance job
54 demands and well-being: A diary study on the moderating role of job resources. Journal of
55 Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88: 702–725.
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Taris, T. W. Schreurs, P. J. G., & Van Iersel-Van Silfhout, I. J. 2001. Job stress, job strain, and
4
5
psychological withdrawal among Dutch university staff: Toward a dual process model for
6 the effects of occupational stress. Work & Stress, 15: 283–296.
7 Tierney, P. 2015. An identity perspective on creativity in organizations. In C. E. Shalley, M. A.
8 Hitt, & J. Zhou (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation, and
9 entrepreneurship: 79–92. New York: Oxford University Press.
10 Totterdell, P., Wood, S., & Wall, T. 2006. An intra-individual test of the demands-control model:
11
A weekly diary study of psychological strain in portfolio workers. Journal of Occupational
12
13
and Organizational Psychology, 79: 63–84.
14 Unsworth, K. 2001. Unpacking creativity. Academy of Management Review, 26: 289–297.
15 Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., & Carter, A. 2005. Creative requirement: A neglected construct in
16 the study of employee creativity? Group & Organization Management, 30: 541–560.
17 Venkataramani, V., Richter, A. W., & Clarke, R. 2014. Creative benefits from well-connected
18 leaders: Leader social network ties as facilitators of employee radical creativity. Journal of
19
Applied Psychology, 99: 966–975.
20
21 Vera, D., & Crossan, M. 2004. Theatrical improvisation: Lessons for organizations.
22 Organization Studies, 25: 727–749.
23 Vough, H. 2012. Not all identifications are created equal: Exploring employee accounts for
24 workgroup, organizational, and professional identification. Organization Science, 23: 778–
25 800.
26 Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., & Mullarkey, S. 1995. Further evidence of some new measures of
27
28
job control, cognitive demand, and production responsibility. Journal of Organizational
29 Behavior, 16: 431–455.
30 Wallace, J. E. 1995. Organizational and professional commitment in professional and
31 nonprofessional organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 228–255.
32 Weick, K. E. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management
33 Review, 14: 516–531.
34
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2015. Managing the unexpected: Sustained performance in a
35
36
complex world. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
37 Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
38 predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17:
39 601–617.
40 Zedelius, C. M., & Schooler, J. W. 2018. Unraveling what’s on our minds: How different types
41 of mind-wandering affect cognition and behavior. In K. Christoff & K. C. R. Fox (Eds.),
42
The Oxford handbook of spontaneous thought: Mind-wandering, creativity, and
43
44 dreaming: 233–247. New York: Oxford University Press.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlations, Study 1
4
5
6 Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8 1. Daily attention residue 2.35 0.95 (.86)
9
10
11 2. Daily cognitively demanding work 3.02 0.95 .37** (.78)
12
13 3. Daily problem-oriented daydreams 2.28 1.04 .25** .26** (.93)
14
15
4. Daily bizarre daydreams 1.63 0.89 .26** .14** .44** (.92)
16
17
18 5. Daily creativity 2.79 1.01 .25** .44** .40** .23** (.91)
19
20 6. Daily performance 3.47 0.84 –.06 .13** .07 .11** .33** (.91)
21
22 Note. N = 676-685. Reliabilities are displayed along the diagonal.
23 *p < .05 **p < .01
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
1
2
3 TABLE 2 Multi-level SEM, Study 1
4
5
6 Model 1
7
8 Variables Daily Problem- Daily
9 Daily Daily
oriented Bizarre
10 Creativity Performance
Daydreams Daydreams
11
12
13 Time index –.06 (.04) .03 (.03) –.03 (.03) –.02 (.03)
14
15 Lagged daily creativity (t-1) .38 (.04)**
16
17
18
Lagged daily performance (t-1) .46 (.05)**
19
20 Daily attention residue –.01 (.05) –.08 (.04)
21
22 Daily cognitively demanding work .30 (.06)** .10 (.05)* .28 (.06)** .10 (.04)*
23
24
25 Daily problem-oriented daydreams .23 (.05)** .04 (.04)
26
27 Daily bizarre daydreams .02 (.05) .02 (.05)
28
29
30
31 Indirect effects for creativity .07 (.02)** .01 (.01)
32
33
Indirect effects for performance .01 (.01) .00 (.01)
34 Note. N = 462 due to the inclusion of lagged daily creativity/daily performance. Unstandardized coefficients are displayed, with standard errors in
35 parentheses.
*p < .05 **p < .01
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
1
2
3 TABLE 3 Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlations, Study 2
4
5
6
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
7
1. Organization 1 — — —
8
9 2. Organization 2 — — –.32** —
10
11 3. Education — — –.36** .06 —
12
13 4. Organizational tenure 3.17 3.00 –.19* –.23* –.02 —
14
15 5. Age 35.88 8.64 –.20* –.11 –.01 .53** —
16
6. Cognitively demanding work 3.59 0.69 .28** .15 –.05 –.08 –.10 (.80)
17
18 7. Professional identification 4.23 1.21 .18 .03 –.27** –.03 –.03 .27** (.76)
19
20 8. Problem-oriented daydreams 4.56 1.25 .10 .09 .02 –.03 –.09 .27** .10 (.89)
21
22 9. Bizarre daydreams 2.94 1.24 .01 .08 .05 –.09 –.18 .18 .11 .14 (.89)
23
24 10. Creativity 5.14 1.15 .00 .14 .16 .10 –.17 .09 .13 .22* .09 (.93)
25
11. Performance 5.94 0.92 .00 .06 .05 .09 –.09 .11 .19* .01 .01 .52** (.81)
26
27 Note. N = 114-117. Reliabilities are displayed along the diagonal.
*p < .05 **p < .01
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
1
2
3 TABLE 4 Path Analysis for Mediation and Moderated-Mediation, Study 2
4
5
6 Variables Model 1 Model 2
7
8 Problem- Problem-
Bizarre Bizarre
9 oriented Creativity oriented Creativity
daydreams daydreams
10 daydreams daydreams
11
12 Cognitively demanding work .48 (.17)** .32 (.15)* –.01 (.16) .48 (.17)** .32 (.15)* –.01 (.16)
13
14 Problem-oriented daydreams .18 (.04)** .16 (.04)**
15
16
17 Bizarre daydreams .07 (.06) .07 (.05)
18
19 Professional identification .02 (.07)
20
21 Problem-oriented daydreams ×
.12 (.05)*
22 Professional identification
23 Bizarre daydreams × Professional
24 .09 (.05)†
identification
25
26 Unconditional indirect effects .09 (.04)* .02 (.02)
27
28 Conditional indirect effects .14 (.07)* .06 (.03)
29 (+1 SD, –1 SD) .01 (.03) –.01 (.03)
30
Simple slopes .31 (.06)** .21 (.08)*
31
32 (+1 SD, –1 SD) .00 (.07) –.06 (.08)
33
Effect size (R2) .07 .03 .09 .07 .03 .15
34
35 Note. N = 114. Unstandardized coefficients are displayed, with standard errors in parentheses.
36 †p = .06 *p < .05 **p < .01
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
1
2
3 FIGURE 1 Multi-level SEM of daily cognitively demanding work and daily daydreams on
4
5
daily creativity and performance, Study 1
6
7
8 .28**
9
10
Daily Problem-
11
12
Oriented .23**
13 Daydreams
14
15 .30** Daily
16 .04ns Creativity
17 Daily
18 Cognitively .37**
19 Demanding Work
20
21 Daily Performance
22 .10* .02ns
23
24
25 Daily Bizarre
26 .02ns
Daydreams
27
28
29
30 .10*
31
32
33 N = 466. Unstandardized coefficients are presented. Solid lines are significant; dashed lines are not significant. For
34 indirect effects see Table 2.
35 *p < .05 **p < .01
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 FIGURE 2 Full structural path model of cognitively demanding work, daydreams, and
4
5
professional identification on creativity, Study 2
6
7
8 -.01 ns
9
10
11 Problem-Oriented
.16**
12 Daydreams
13
14
15 .48** .12*
16
17
18 Daily Cognitively Professional
.17 ns .02 ns Creativity
19 Demanding Work Identification
20
21
22 .32* .09†
23
24
25 Bizarre .07 ns
26 Daydreams
27
28
29
30
31 N = 114. Unstandardized coefficients are presented. Solid lines are significant; dashed lines are not significant. For
32 indirect effects see Table 4.
33 †p = .06 *p < .05 **p < .01
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 FIGURE 3 Interaction between problem-oriented daydreams and professional
4
5
identification on creativity, Study 2
6
7
8 3.60
9 3.50
10
3.40
11
12 3.30
Low Professional
13 3.20 Identification
Creativity
14 3.10
15 Average Professional
16 3.00
Identification
17 2.90
18 2.80 High Professional
19 Identification
2.70
20
21 2.60
22 2.50
23 2.40
24 Low Problem-Oriented High Problem-Oriented
25 Daydreams Daydreams
26
27
28
29
30
FIGURE 4 Interaction between bizarre daydreams and professional identification
31
32 on creativity, Study 2
33
34 3.40
35
36 3.30
37
38 3.20
Low Professional
39 Identification
3.10
Creativity
40
3.00
42 Identification
43
2.90
44 High Professional
46
47 2.70
48
49 2.60
50 Low Bizarre Daydreams High Bizarre Daydreams
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 FIGURE 5 Interaction between problem-oriented daydreams and professional
4
5
identification on performance, Study 2
6
7
8 3.50
9 3.40
10
11 3.30
12 Low Professional
3.20
13 Identification
14 3.10
Performance
16 3.00
Identification
17 2.90
18 High Professional
20 2.70
21
22 2.60
23 2.50
24 Low Problem-Oriented High Problem-Oriented
25 Daydreams Daydreams
26
27
28
29
30
31 FIGURE 6 Interaction between bizarre daydreams and professional identification on
32 performance, Study 2
33
34
35 3.50
36
37 3.40
38 3.30
39
3.20 Low Professional
40
Identification
41
Performance
3.10
42
3.00 Average Professional
43 Identification
44 2.90
45
High Professional
47
2.70
48
49 2.60
50
2.50
51
Low Bizarre Daydreams High Bizarre Daydreams
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 APPENDIX
4
5
Measures, Study 2
6 Cognitively demanding work
7 1. Do you have to react quickly to prevent problems arising?
8 2. Do you have to concentrate all the time to watch for things going wrong?
9 3. Does your work need your undivided attention?
10 4. Do the problems you deal with require a thorough understanding of the work process in your
11
area?
12
13
5. Do you come across problems in your job you have not met before?
14 6. Do you need to use your knowledge of the work process to help prevent problems arising in
15 your job?
16
17 Problem-oriented daydreams
18 1. When faced with a difficult situation at work, I imagine that I have worked out the problem
19
and try out my solution in my thoughts.
20
21 2. My daydreams offer me useful clues to tricky situations I face at work.
22 3. My daydreams are closely related to problems that come up during my daily work life.
23 4. My fantasies sometimes surprise me by suggesting an answer to a work problem, which I
24 could not work out.
25 5. Sometimes an answer to a difficult work problem will come to me during a daydream.
26 6. My daydreams are about different ways to finish things I still have to do at work.
27
28
29 Bizarre daydreams
30 1. I often have thoughts about things that could rarely occur in real life.
31 2. I daydream about utterly impossible situations.
32 3. The things I daydream about are not things that could happen in real life.
33 4. My daydreams are as weird as science fiction.
34
5. I daydream about doing things I know will never be possible for me.
35
36
6. Most of my daydreams are about really unusual people or about events that could never
37 happen.
38
39 Professional identification
40 1. When someone criticizes my profession, it feels like a personal insult.
41 2. I am very interested in what others think about my profession.
42
3. When I talk about my profession, I usually say “we” rather than “they.”
43
44 4. My profession’s successes are my successes.
45 5. When someone praises my profession, it feels like a personal compliment.
46
47 Creativity
48 1. How ORIGINAL and PRACTICAL is employee’s work? This refers to developing ideas that
49 are both totally unique and especially useful to the organization.
50
51
2. How ADAPTIVE and PRACTICAL is employees’ work? This refers to using existing
52 information or materials to develop ideas that are useful to the organization.
53 3. How CREATIVE is employee’s work? Creativity refers to developing ideas that are both
54 original and useful to the organization.
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Performance
4
5
1. Please rate the amount of EFFORT employee puts into his/her work. Effort does not refer to
6 how well an employee does a job, but rather how hard he or she works on the job.
7 2. Please rate the QUALITY of work done by employee. This does not refer to how hard the
8 employee works, or to how much he/she produces, but to the overall quality of the work.
9 3. Please rate the QUANTITY of work done by employee. This does not refer to how hard the
10 employee works, or to the quality of his or her work, but to how much work he or she
11
completes.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 Markus Baer(baer@wustl.edu) is a professor of organizational behavior at the Olin Business
22 School, Washington University in St. Louis. He earned his Ph.D. (2007) from the University of
23 Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. His research examines the determinants of the various activities
24 (i.e., problem formulation, idea generation, idea evaluation, solution implementation) underlying
25 creativity and innovation in organizations. He was formerly associate editor of Academy of
26 Management Journal (2017-2019).
27
28
29 Erik Dane (erikdane@wustl.edu) is an associate professor of organizational behavior at the Olin
30 Business School, Washington University in St. Louis. He received his Ph.D. (2007) from the
31 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research focuses on managerial cognition and
32 explores topics such as attention, creativity, epiphanies, mindfulness, and mind wandering.
33
34
Hector Madrid (hpmadrid@uc.cl) is an assistant professor of organizational behavior at the
35
36
Management School, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. He earned his Ph.D. (2013) from
37 the University of Sheffield, United Kingdom. His research focuses on affect in the workplace and
38 creativity and innovation in organizations.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Zoning Out or Breaking Through

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zoning Out or Breaking Through

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academy of Management Journal

Zoning out or Breaking Through? Linking Daydreaming to

Journal: Academy of Management Journal

Manuscript Type: Revision

Creativity < Behavior < Organizational Behavior < Topic Areas,

You might also like