Interactive Effects of Growth Need Strength, Work Context, and Job Complexity On Self-Reported Creative Performance
Abstract
We propose that “growth need strength” is an important individual factor for employees' creative performance. Using an interactionist perspective, we examine the relationship between growth need strength and a supportive work context on self-reported creativity across a wide range of jobs that vary in complexity. Controlling for the effects of individual factors that have been previously linked to creativity (i.e., creative personality, intrinsic motivation, and cognitive style), we find that growth need strength has both a positive main effect on creativity and an interactive effect with context. Furthermore, job complexity moderates this association. Implications for managers are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The interactionist perspective has been one of the most frequently used conceptual frameworks in emphasizing the interactions between contextual and individual factors that might enhance or inhibit creativity at work.
“This has been one of the most frequently used conceptual frameworks in emphasizing the interactions between the contextual and individual factors that might enhance or inhibit creativity at work (Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2009; Yuan & Woodman, 2010; Zhou & Shalley, 2010).”
From Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework (2014) · cites this paper as Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2009
Growth need strength has a positive main effect on creativity.
“Relatedly, Shalley et al. (2009) found a positive main effect of growth need strength (i.e., individual differences in their desire to seek personal growth while working on their jobs; Hackman & Oldham, 1980) on creativity.”
From Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework (2014) · cites this paper as Shalley et al. (2009)
Cites
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788 · see citing works
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194 · see citing works
Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0076546 · Cited by 7,246 · see citing works
CREATIVE SELF-EFFICACY: ITS POTENTIAL ANTECEDENTS AND RELATIONSHIP TO CREATIVE PERFORMANCE.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/3069429 · Cited by 2,787 · see citing works
A Meta-Analysis of Personality in Scientific and Artistic Creativity
Feist, G. J. (1998) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5 · Cited by 2,180 · see citing works
Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in Organizational Behavior
Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.406 · Cited by 961 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Some debate surrounds cutoff scores for model fit; we considered CFI values .90 and SRMSR values .10 as deficient, CFI values from .90 to .95 and SRMSR values from .08 to .10 as acceptable, and CFI values from .95 and SRMSR .08 as excellent (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Mathieu & Taylor, 2006).”
MethodTransformational Leadership, Conservation, and Creativity: Evidence From Korea
(2003) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/30040662 · Cited by 589 · see citing works
Measuring the perceived support for innovation in organizations.
Siegel, S. M., & Kaemmerer, W. F. (1978) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.63.5.553 · Cited by 426 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206314527128 · Cited by 3,103 · see citing works
Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0035661 · Cited by 1,981 · see citing works
Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001 · Cited by 1,863 · see citing works
Perspectives on the Social Psychology of Creativity
Amabile, T. M., & Pillemer, J. (2012) · The Journal of Creative Behavior · doi:10.1002/jocb.001 · Cited by 619 · see citing works
Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work engagement
A. Agarwal, U. (2014) · Personnel Review · doi:10.1108/pr-02-2012-0019 · Cited by 389 · see citing works
Brailovskaia, J., Schillack, H., & Margraf, J. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106511 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
Mahmood, M., Uddin, M. A., & Fan, L. (2019) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-07-2017-0707 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Oldham, G. R., & Da Silva, N. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.041 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Organizational climate and creative performance in the public sector
Mutonyi, B. R., Slåtten, T., & Lien, G. (2020) · European Business Review · doi:10.1108/ebr-02-2019-0021 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Work curiosity: A new lens for understanding employee creativity
Chang, Y.-Y., & Shih, H.-Y. (2019) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.10.005 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Murnieks, C. Y., Arthurs, J. D., Cardon, M. S., Farah, N., Stornelli, J., & Michael Haynie, J. (2020) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.12.004 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
A Self-Regulation Model of Zhong Yong Thinking and Employee Adaptive Performance
Pan, W., & Sun, L.-Y. (2018) · Management and Organization Review · doi:10.1017/mor.2017.33 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Kong, D. T. (2016) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/ocp0000013 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Principled negotiation: an evidence-based perspective
Hak, F. R., & Sanders, K. (2018) · Evidence-based HRM: a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship · doi:10.1108/ebhrm-03-2017-0014 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- University of Connecticut (US)
- Venue
- Academy of Management Journal
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2009-06
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 489-505
- ISSN
- 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-0989
- OpenAlex
- W2048378239
- Cited by
- 738
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 31.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academy of Management Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employee Performance and Motivation
- Keywords
- growth need strength, work context, job complexity, creative performance, employee creativity, interaction effects
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
