Assignment 01 MGMT 722

Group members

1 MS160200099 MEHAK ALI FAROOQ

2 MS160200501 MOHSIN IRFAN
3 MS170400122 ASAD OMER QURESHI
4 MS160400414 TAUSIF AHMAD
5

MS160400780 SHAHZAD KHAN

Introduction
 Study Name:
Employee Creativity: Personal And Contextual Factors
at Work

 Writer:
GREG R. OLDHAM & ANNE CUMMINGS

Year of the study:

1996
Introduction
 Thing to remember:

The research was carried out in 1996 so all the target and objective was set as per that
time

 Origin of the study:

 Author narrated that numerous commentators have argued that enhancing the creative
performance of employees is a necessary step if organizations are to achieve competitive
advantage

 Unfortunately, little is known about the conditions that promote the creative performance of
individual employees in organizations.

 So empirical work has systematically examined the possibility that characteristics of

organizational contexts contribute significantly to employees' creative performance at
work.
Introduction
Origin of the study:

several theorists have called for this research that addresses the joint or combined effects of personal
and contextual factors on employee creativity

The study examined the independent and joint contributions of characteristics of individual
employees and of their organizational contexts i.e

i. job complexity
ii. supportive supervision,
iii. controlling supervision

Three indicators of employees' creative performance:

i. patent disclosures written

ii. contributions to an organization suggestion program
iii. supervisory ratings of creativity
Employee Creativity
 Enhancing the creative performance of employees is a necessary step if
organizations are to achieve competitive advantage.
 When employees perform creatively, they suggest new and useful
products, ideas or procedures that provide an organization with important
raw material for successive development and possible implementation.
 The initiation and implementation of these products enhance an
organization's ability to respond to opportunities and thereby to adopt,
grow and compete.
 Creative performance as products, ideas or procedures to satisfy two
conditions:
1. They are new or original.
2. They are useful to an organization.
Distinction between creative performance
and organizational innovation.

 creative performance refers to products, ideas, and so forth

produced at the individual level, innovation refers to the successful
implementation of these products at the organizational level

 In the current study, the write’s focus was on the generation of

creative outcomes by individual employees, not on the
implementation of these outcomes.

 Further, we consider a product, idea, or procedure novel if it

involves either a significant recombination of existing materials or
an introduction of completely new materials.
Research methodology
 In this study the method of hypothesis testing is used to
conclude the results .

 In this method at initial stage a testable statement is

developed
 This statement depends upon proposed explanation for
some observed phenomenon.

 Then this statement is test by using some specific method

and results are analyzed.
Hypothesis Developing
 In the study scope of study in mainly divided into two parts

1. Personal Characteristics and Creativity

2. Organizational Context and Creativity

 The Organizational Context and Creativity is further divided

into three parameters
i. Job complexity
ii. supportive supervision
iii. controlling supervision

 So writer develop hypothesis against each parameters

Hypothesis -1
 Hypothesis 1 is related to Personal Characteristics and Creativity

 This research has examined personal characteristics ranging from

biographical factors to measures of cognitive style and intelligence
 In the study, researcher used the Creative Personality Scale to assess
employees' creativity- relevant personal characteristics and examined the
contribution of the CPS to employee creativity.

 So researcher developed following Hypothesis:

“An employee's score on the CPS will relate positively to employee

creative performance”
Hypothesis -2
 Hypothesis 2 is related to parameter of Organizational Context and
Creativity i.e Job Complexity
 The design of the job has long been considered an important contributor to
employees intrinsic motivation and creative performance at work.
 When jobs are complex and challenging, individuals are to be excited about
their work activities and interested in completing these activities.
 In the study, researcher used MPS index to assess job complexity and examined
the contribution of this index to employee creative achievement.

 So researcher developed following Hypothesis:

“A job's score on the MPS index will relate positively to employee creative
performance.”
Hypothesis -3
 Hypothesis 3 is related to parameter of Organizational Context and Creativity i.e
supportive supervision

 A second characteristic of the organizational context that is often considered a

potential determinant of employee creativity at work is style of supervision.

 When supervisors are supportive, they shown concern for employees’ feelings and
needs, encourage them to voice their own concern.

 This research also supports the proposed link between supportive supervision and
employee creativity.

 So researcher developed following Hypothesis:

“Supportive supervision will relate positively to employee performance”

Hypothesis -4
 Hypothesis 4 is related to parameter of Organizational Context and Creativity i.e
controlling supervision

 Previous research also provides some support for the association between controlling supervision
and lowered intrinsic motivation and creativity.

 Previous research also showed negative relations between employee reports of

supervisory control and objective indicators of creative output.

 The current study specifically examined associations between the supportive and
controlling aspects of supervision and several indicators of employee creative
performance.

 So researcher developed following Hypothesis:

“Controlling supervision will relate negatively to employee creative

performance.”
Hypothesis -5
 Hypothesis 5 is related to Joint Contributions of Personal and Contextual Characteristics

 Researchers discussed the possible independent contributions of employees'

creativity-relevant personal characteristics, job complexity, and supervisory style to
creative performance.

 In addition to examining these independent contributions, researcher also examined

the possibility that these personal and contextual factors combine and interact with
one another to influence employee creativity at work.

 So researcher developed following Hypothesis:

“Creativity-relevant personal characteristics and contextual

conditions will interact in such a way that creative performance will
be highest when employees score high on the CPS index, work on
high-MPS jobs, and are supervised in both a supportive and non
controlling fashion..”
Methods
 Research Setting and Participants

 The research was conducted in two manufacturing facilities

that produced component parts for technical equipment.

 Procedures
 Three types of data were collected on site.

employees completed then to the direct supervisors, finally to

human resource managers
Method
 Measures
i. Creativity-relevant personal characteristics The 30-item
Creative Personality Scale of the ACL was used to assess
employees‘ creativity-relevant personal characteristics.

ii. Job complexity. Fifteen items from the Job Diagnostic

Survey were used to assess the challenge and complexity
of employees' jobs.

iii. Supervisory style. To measure supervisory support and

control, researcher used12 items.
Method
 Creative performance ratings: Supervisors rated the extent to which
each employee produced work that was novel and useful to the
organization.

 Patent disclosures written: this measure specifically assesses the

number of internal patent disclosures written by an employee over a
two-year period.

 Contributions to a suggestion program. Employees were also invited

to submit recommendations to a formal organization suggestion
program.

 Overall performance ratings. supervisors of each employee rated his

or her performance on three dimensions: work quantity, work
quality, and amount of effort.
Results
Results
 After implementing the stated method the Researcher get the results and
numeric for as given in the table.
 The researcher analyzed the each hypothesis against the final results
 Correlations between CPS and the three creativity indicators are shown in
Table and provide only partial support for Hypothesis 1 .
 Results shown in Table also provide partial support for Hypothesis 2, Job
complexity (MPS) correlates positively and significantly with only one of the
three creativity indicators.
 The results shown in Table provide no support for Hypothesis 3. There are no
significant associations between supportive supervision (SS) and the creativity
indicators.
 Finally, no controlling supervision (NS) correlates positively and significantly
with one measure of creative performance (rated creativity), providing partial
support for Hypothesis 4.
Discussion on the Results
 Individuals with high levels of creativity- relevant personal characteristics
might be identified through the use of assessment instruments such as CPS.
 Individuals demonstrating high creative potential relative to these norms
might then be surrounded with contextual conditions that support intrinsic
motivation.
 High CPS employees might be placed in complex, enriched jobs and
managed in a supportive, non-controlling manner.
 Low CPS employees, enriching jobs and managing in a supportive manner
may have few beneficial effects or adverse effects on creative achievement.
 Results indicated that performance may be enhanced and intentions to quit
lowered if all employees were placed in highly complex jobs and managed
in a supportive, non-controlling manner.
Discussion on the Results
 Our results indicate low relationship among creativity.
 Rated creativity and patents were positively correlated with one another.
 The suggestion measures was not significantly correlated with other
measure creativity.
 The multiplicative effects of personal and contextual characteristics were
similar for rated creativity and patents but different for suggestions.
 Routine changes represent small changes in organization’s products and
services.
 Radical changes represent larger changes in organization’ products and
services.
Discussion on the Results
 Employees with adaptive styles work within existing structures to make
incremental changes and do better.
 Employees with innovative styles treat current structures as part of the
problem and make more radical changes by things differently.
 Suggestions reflect a routine or adaptive kind of creativity outcome
whereas patents represents a radical or innovative type of creativity
performance.
Conclusion
 Individual creativity in organizations and provides support for an
interactionist approach.

 Future practice and research need to further unravel the complex relations
among characteristics, contextual factors, and a variety of creative
outcome.

 Organizations may be better able to appreciate their employees’ creative

potential and to benefit from the implementation of their novel and useful
contributions.