Content uploaded by Sun Young Sung
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sun Young Sung on Dec 14, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Group & Organization Management
1 –31
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1059601115619081
gom.sagepub.com
Article
Dual Effects of Job
Complexity on Proactive
and Responsive
Creativity: Moderating
Role of Employee
Ambiguity Tolerance
Sun Young Sung1, Andreas Antefelt2,
and Jin Nam Choi3
Abstract
Departing from existing studies based on general notion of creativity,
we highlight the driver or initiating force behind creative engagement in
organizations. To this end, we distinguish between proactive and responsive
creativity and provide a nuanced perspective on the processes underlying
distinct types of employee creativity. We propose that job complexity
indirectly affects proactive and responsive creativity of employees by
promoting psychological empowerment and cognitive overload, respectively.
The ambiguity tolerance of employees is hypothesized to moderate the
indirect effects of job complexity on the two types of creativity. Data
collected from 143 employee–supervisor dyads in various companies in
Sweden and Korea supported most of our hypotheses. For employees with
high ambiguity tolerance, job complexity exhibited a significant indirect effect
on proactive creativity through psychological empowerment. For employees
with low ambiguity tolerance, job complexity exerted a significant indirect
1Nanjing University, China
2Samsung Electronics, Suwon, South Korea
3Seoul National University, South Korea
Corresponding Author:
Jin Nam Choi, Graduate School of Business, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro,
Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-916, South Korea.
Email: jnchoi@snu.kr
619081GOMXXX10.1177/1059601115619081Group & Organization ManagementSung et al.
research-article2015
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
2 Group & Organization Management
effect on responsive creativity via cognitive overload. By revealing distinct
psychological paths toward different types of creativity and identifying
a boundary condition for such processes, the present study provides an
ecologically valid explanation regarding creativity in organizations.
Keywords
job complexity, ambiguity tolerance, psychological empowerment, cognitive
overload, proactive creativity, responsive creativity
Increasing appreciation for employee creativity to achieve and sustain com-
petitive advantages in firms has given workplace creativity the status of a
“holy grail” for individual and team performance in organizations (Anderson,
Potočnik, & Zhou, 2014; To, Fisher, Ashkanasy, & Rowe, 2012). The consen-
sus on the importance of creativity has motivated intensive research to iden-
tify and validate personal and contextual predictors of creativity (Shalley,
Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Creativity has been examined as a broad and unitary
construct that reflects the production, conceptualization, or development of
novel and useful ideas, processes, or procedures (Unsworth, 2001). However,
this assumption has been increasingly contested because creativity research-
ers recognize the multifaceted nature of the creativity construct. Thus, cre-
ativity can range from minor adaptations to radical breakthroughs (Mumford
& Gustafson, 1988), or it can be classified according to the driver or initiator
and problem type (Unsworth, 2001). Different forms of creativity must be
considered in developing ecologically valid explanation of creativity in orga-
nizations. This is because assuming a unitary form of creativity in employees
with varied individual characteristics and performing dissimilar tasks under a
diverse work context is considered unrealistic.
In this study, we acknowledge the multifaceted nature of creativity and
examine its distinct forms, which reflect different drivers of creative efforts.
Unlike prior studies that consider different levels (mostly novelty) of creative
contribution, the present study focuses on the driver or initiating force behind
creative engagement. To this end, we identify two forms of creativity, namely
proactive and responsive, based on classification dimensions suggested by
Unsworth (2001). Although employees can spontaneously develop new solu-
tions on the basis of their own volition and internal drivers (thus, being proac-
tive), others may be forced by external pressure to submit new ideas (thus,
being responsive).
In contrast to previous studies that identified antecedents of creativity in
general terms (George, 2007), we explore processes that concurrently predict
the two distinct types of creativity. Among various contextual factors, we
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Sung et al. 3
attend to job complexity because job characteristics or the properties of what
a person does at work are a major source of work satisfaction, task motiva-
tion, and performance (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Hackman
& Oldham, 1975). The concept of job complexity is significant in contempo-
rary organizations, in which most jobs have become cognitively demanding
and complex and are often transformed into knowledge-intensive work
(Oldham & Hackman, 2010). Thus, understanding how complex jobs can
stimulate the workplace attitudes of employees and engender different forms
of creativity is critical for researchers and practitioners.
Complex jobs tend to promote psychological empowerment, which refers
to intrinsic task motivation and reflects “an active rather than a passive orien-
tation to a work role . . . an orientation in which an individual wishes and
feels able to shape his or her work role and context” (Spreitzer, 1995,
p. 1444). Job complexity, as a challenging stressor, can stimulate creative
thoughts and persistence to derive solutions (Oldham & Cummings, 1996;
Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2009). Thus, we expect that job complexity is likely
to exhibit proactive creativity when it prompts psychological empowerment
among employees.
Complex jobs can also engender opposite psychological states, such as
task-related cognitive burden (cf. distraction arousal theory; Teichner, Arees,
& Reilly, 1963). This outcome is attributed to individuals’ limited pool of
mental resources, such that complex jobs become psychologically demand-
ing and induce workload pressure and stress, which function as a hindrance
stressor (Byron, Khazanchi, & Nazarian, 2010; Lepine, Podsakoff, & Lepine,
2005). Additional responsibilities and burden from a broad range of tasks and
complicated problems impel employees to experience cognitive overload,
which limits their cognitive resources for task engagement (Sacramento, Fay,
& West, 2013). This resource limitation may urge employees to find “nimble-
witted means” to reduce their workload (Byron et al., 2010). In addition,
when creativity is demanded by supervisors to address complex task-related
problems, employees are forced to submit creative ideas and thus exhibit
responsive creativity to fulfill minimum requirements (Xie & Johns, 1995).
Job complexity predicts both creativity types by eliciting two opposing
psychological states. A critical question remains, that is, when does job com-
plexity predicts proactive creativity by eliciting psychological empowerment
or responsive creativity by inducing cognitive overload. We suggest that
ambiguity tolerance is a critical trait of employees that determines their reac-
tion to job complexity. Ambiguity tolerance reflects the emotional and cogni-
tive functioning of individuals that determines how they perceive and
interpret complex, incongruent, and multifaceted stimuli and situations
(Furnham & Marks, 2013). Employees with high ambiguity tolerance are
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
4 Group & Organization Management
likely to experience psychological empowerment when facing job complex-
ity, whereas those with low ambiguity tolerance are likely to experience cog-
nitive overload. Thus, we propose a moderated mediation model, in which
ambiguity tolerance moderates the indirect effects of job complexity on pro-
active and responsive creativity through two psychological reactions. Our
theoretical propositions are empirically validated using multisource data col-
lected from 143 employee–supervisor dyads from various companies in
Sweden and Korea.
Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses
Creativity refers to the generation of novel and useful ideas (Amabile, Conti,
Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). Although creativity has been broadly
defined, scholars suggest that it is complex and “cannot be captured in a
single variable” (Sternberg, 1999, p. 84). By focusing on different magni-
tudes of creativity, Mumford and Gustafson (1988) differentiated minor
adaptations (e.g., changes in how work is performed) from radical break-
throughs (e.g., completely new products). Kaufman and Beghetto (2009)
suggested the use of four C models (i.e., Big-C, little-c, mini-c, and pro-c) to
distinguish decreased magnitudes or levels of creative contributions.
Subsequent studies on degrees of creativity distinguished radical from incre-
mental creativity (Gilson, Lim, D’Innocenzo, & Moye, 2012; Madjar,
Greenberg, & Chen, 2011). Alternatively, Unsworth (2001) proposed distinct
motivational drivers or triggers to initiate four types of creativity (responsive,
expected, contributory, and proactive). She emphasized why people exhibit
creativity (external demands vs. internal motivation) and what triggers their
engagement (i.e., open problems to be discovered vs. closed problems pre-
sented as task requirements).
Basing on the work of Unsworth (2001), the present study focuses on
proactive and responsive creativity, which are the most clearly distinguish-
able types with the least conceptual overlap.1 Proactive creativity occurs
when individuals actively and voluntarily search for opportunities and gener-
ate ideas to address the problems they discover, thus offering suggestions for
further improvement even without a specific problem to solve at hand. By
contrast, responsive creativity occurs when individuals submit ideas as a
response to the requirements of a situation and as a reactive effort to address
a specified and presented problem. For instance, a sales person exhibits pro-
active creativity when he spontaneously suggests innovative ideas for design-
ing a new product or for immediately improving service delivery after careful
observation of complex responses of customers. On the contrary, a factory
worker shows responsive creativity when he submits weekly suggestions to
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Sung et al. 5
reduce defects during the manufacturing process as required by the employer.
However, the same person engages in proactive creativity if he spontaneously
identifies ways to reduce the waste of raw materials even without any exter-
nal requirement or expectation.
The two types of creativity differentiate whether employees are externally
directed to submit ideas or internally motivated to initiate voluntary creative
endeavors. This distinction is important because spontaneous extra-role
behavior and compulsory in-role behavior exert disparate consequences on
employee morale and performance (Fox, Spector, Goh, Bruursema, &
Kessler, 2012). Elaborate understanding of functions related to various cre-
ativity types can provide sophisticated directions for managers to promote
appropriate forms of employee creativity. The present study empirically vali-
dates the two creativity types in work settings and elucidates the process by
which employees engage in such distinct creative efforts. As summarized in
Figure 1, we examine the moderating role of ambiguity tolerance in the rela-
tionship between job complexity and the two creativity types mediated by
distinct psychological states.
Job Complexity and Different Types of Creativity
Based on job characteristics theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1975), job design
has been recognized as a critical predictor of employee creativity (Shalley
Figure 1. Theoretical framework predicting employee creativity.
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
6 Group & Organization Management
et al., 2004). Job complexity reflects “the extent to which a job entails auton-
omy or less routines and the extent to which it allows for decision latitude”
(Shalley et al., 2009, p. 493). Complex jobs are expected to enhance the excite-
ment and intrinsic interest of individuals toward work activities, motivate them
to perform effectively, and stimulate creative efforts (Oldham & Cummings,
1996; Wright & Cordery, 1999). Challenging and engaging tasks offer oppor-
tunities to use high-level skills and make significant choices; such tasks urge
employees to proactively pursue ways to improve their work and explore new
possibilities (Grant & Parker, 2009). Thus, employees go beyond their formal
responsibilities and spontaneously engage in proactive processes to determine
innovative solutions and opportunities for generating and applying novel ideas.
However, consistent with distraction arousal theory (Teichner et al., 1963),
the role of job complexity toward creativity can be quite opposite. Complex
jobs may impose substantial information-processing demands and psycho-
logical pressure on employees, thus depleting their cognitive resources and
capacity to pursue creative solutions (Lepine et al., 2005). Despite the absence
of intrinsic motivation and reduced cognitive slack, employees may still for-
mulate creative solutions because highly complex jobs tend to present prob-
lems requiring critical solutions and a certain level of creativity (Shalley et al.,
2009). Hence, even when experiencing stress from complex jobs, employees
may still engage in creative behavior but in a passive and responsive manner
(Scott & Bruce, 1994; Unsworth, Wall, & Carter, 2005). This phenomenon is
prevalent in contemporary educational and organizational contexts and com-
pels students and employees to generate creative ideas to attain decent grades
and performance evaluations, regardless of internal task motivation (Choi,
Sung, & Cho, 2014). The resulting creativity is externally driven by a compul-
sory reaction to comply with social and task demands and is often against the
own volition of performers (To et al., 2012). Thus, employees may exhibit
responsive creativity under high job complexity by passively responding to
task demands and offering solutions to given problems. In summary, we
hypothesize that job complexity predicts both types of creativity.
Hypothesis 1: Job complexity is positively related to proactive creativity.
Hypothesis 2: Job complexity is positively related to responsive creativity.
Mediating Roles of Psychological Empowerment and Cognitive
Overload
The dual creative outcomes of job complexity may be accounted for by dif-
ferential psychological reactions of employees toward the job. Job character-
istics theory suggests that job-design factors contribute to work outcomes by
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Sung et al. 7
influencing critical psychological states (Hackman & Oldham, 1975).
Similarly, we propose that job complexity enhances proactive creativity by
generating psychological empowerment and promotes responsive creativity
by inducing cognitive overload.
Psychological empowerment refers to intrinsic task motivation that
reflects a sense of control and an active orientation to the task (Spreitzer,
1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).
Complex jobs offer opportunities to work on challenging and meaningful
activities, thereby allowing employees to experience self-efficacy, a feeling
of achievement, and a sense of autonomy and impact, which enhance psycho-
logical empowerment (Gagne, Senecal, & Koestner, 1997; Seibert, Wang, &
Courtright, 2011). Psychologically empowered employees tend to “expend
effort based on interest, curiosity, and a desire to learn . . . [which] enhance
creativity by increasing positive affect, cognitive flexibility, risk taking, and
persistence” (Grant & Berry, 2011, p. 73). Thus, psychological empowerment
compels employees to willingly take risks, explore new cognitive pathways,
and focus on the job for long periods (Oldham & Cummings, 1996).
Psychologically empowered employees exert additional effort and engage
in proactive behavior beyond minimum task requirements (Wat & Shaffer,
2005). In addition, these employees are cognitively flexible, unconstrained
by existing rules and procedures, and show a proactive orientation to a task
(Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). These characteristics confer employees to pro-
actively explore new possibilities and identify novel solutions (Shalley et al.,
2009). This proactive approach to creativity is adopted because psychologi-
cal empowerment encourages curiosity and learning among employees,
extends the breadth and range of available information, and fosters confi-
dence in pursuing new pathways and exploring unfamiliar domains (Seibert
et al., 2011). Thus, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3: Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship
between job complexity and proactive creativity.
Previous studies discovered that “incumbents find that high-complexity
work both engages and overwhelms them” (Humphrey et al., 2007, p. 1335).
Complex jobs require large amounts of cognitive processing capacity and
ability (Haerem & Rau, 2007). As working memory is limited, overabun-
dance of information and inability or difficulty to process information can
result in cognitive overload and restrict high-level reasoning and problem-
solving capacity of individuals (Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2004). High demands
for information processing and problem solving incurred by complex jobs
can be a critical source of tension and anxiety (Hart & Staveland, 1988; Xie
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8 Group & Organization Management
& Johns, 1995). This context leads to a psychologically taxing situation,
which depletes available energy and cognitive capacity (Bakker, Schaufeli,
Leiter, & Taris, 2008; Hallowell, 2005). Stress from overwhelming cognitive
burden urges employees to intentionally direct their limited resources to work
areas, as emphasized in their given role and by the manager, to prevent
resource loss and achieve task requirements (Gorgievsky & Hobfoll, 2008).
In this circumstance, employees are likely to invest their limited resources to
complete the minimum task requirement (Parker & Kulik, 1995). Thus, when
employees experience cognitive overload, they may become avoidance ori-
ented and behave passively by fulfilling the minimum level of problem solv-
ing required by the task (Bakker et al., 2008; Hallowell, 2005).
Hypothesis 4: Cognitive overload mediates the relationship between job
complexity and responsive creativity.
Moderated Mediation: Ambiguity Tolerance as Moderator
Job complexity enhances both proactive and responsive creativity because it
can elicit different psychological reactions. A critical issue is to understand
why some employees exhibit proactive creativity, whereas other personnel
show responsive creativity when encountering complex jobs. To address this
issue, we review the related literature on stress, which posits that “responses
to stressors vary as a function of individual differences that influence the way
individuals appraise and cope with stressors” (Lepine et al., 2005, p. 764).
Similarly, studies on job characteristics theory suggest that individual reac-
tions to job-design properties vary depending on individual differences, such
as growth-need strength (Hackman & Oldham, 1975).
In this study, we identify ambiguity tolerance as a critical boundary condi-
tion because it shapes individuals’ sense making of ambiguous and complex
situations. Ambiguity tolerance is a core individual disposition that influ-
ences spontaneous psychological reactions of people toward ill-defined and
cognitively demanding work situations (Merrotsy, 2013). As such, this char-
acteristic determines “the way an individual (or group) perceives and pro-
cesses information about ambiguous situations or stimuli when confronted by
an array of unfamiliar, complex, or incongruent clues” (Furnham &
Ribchester, 1995, p. 179). Thus, we propose that ambiguity tolerance chan-
nels individual interpretation of complex task situations into disparate direc-
tions and provides a plausible explanation to varied psychological reactions
to the same complex job. Ambiguity tolerance is also highly relevant in the
current research context because it is a core driver of creativity (Furnham &
Marks, 2013).
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Sung et al. 9
Individuals with high ambiguity tolerance perceive complex task situa-
tions as interesting and desirable, whereas those with low ambiguity toler-
ance appraise the same situation as threatening and stressful (Furnham &
Ribchester, 1995). Compared with employees with low ambiguity tolerance,
those with high tolerance are more likely to conceive job complexity as a
positive challenge for personal growth and therefore enjoy opportunities
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lepine et al., 2005). As such, employees with
high ambiguity tolerance are likely to be psychologically empowered and
develop intrinsic and active task orientation toward complex jobs, leading to
spontaneous idea generation and problem solving. Thus, high ambiguity tol-
erance accentuates the role of psychological empowerment in mediating the
effect of job complexity on proactive creativity. By contrast, employees with
low ambiguity tolerance are likely to perceive complex and ambiguous tasks
as a source of discomfort and stress, and thus develop passive coping styles
(Furnham & Marks, 2013). These employees find job complexity as a cogni-
tively overloading or exhausting situation, and therefore passively engage in
creative efforts only when clear instructions and demands for creativity are
present. The intervening role of cognitive overload in job complexity and
responsive creativity should be intensified for employees with low ambiguity
tolerance. Overall, we propose the following moderated mediation
hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5: Ambiguity tolerance positively moderates the mediated
relationship between job complexity and proactive creativity through psy-
chological empowerment, such that the mediated relationship is stronger
for individuals with higher ambiguity tolerance.
Hypothesis 6: Ambiguity tolerance negatively moderates the mediated
relationship between job complexity and responsive creativity through
cognitive overload, such that the mediated relationship is stronger for
individuals with lower ambiguity tolerance.
Method
Sample and Procedures
Considering the critical role of ambiguity tolerance in our moderated media-
tion model, we collected data from multiple countries with different levels of
uncertainty avoidance, which has been often used in the literature inter-
changeably with ambiguity tolerance (Furnham & Marks, 2013). We sampled
full-time employees from business organizations in Sweden and Korea; the
subject countries ranked relatively high and low, respectively, in uncertainty
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
10 Group & Organization Management
avoidance of cultural values (Hofstede, 2001). Questionnaires were distrib-
uted to participants of executive education programs in Sweden and Korea.
The participating managers and executives were instructed to complete the
leader survey, pass the member survey to one of their followers, and return
the completed questionnaires in post-stamped, addressed envelopes. Over a
2-week period, completed questionnaires were returned from 151 leaders and
187 members. We excluded the questionnaires with incomplete responses
(eight leaders and 32 members) and clearly unreliable patterns of responses
such as offering the same rating throughout several sections of the question-
naire (seven from members). In addition, we excluded five members without
matching leader evaluation data. The screening procedures yielded a final
sample of 143 dyadic pairs of employees and their supervisors (response rate
= 71.5%). This analysis sample included 87 pairs from Swedish companies
and 56 pairs from Korean companies. The participants performed various
functions, including general management (35.7%), sales (16.8%), research
and development (R&D; 25.2%), and production (22.4%). Males comprised
of 53.8% of the employee sample with an average age of 34.0 years
(SD = 10.30) and an average organizational tenure of 6.5 years (SD = 9.28).
The education levels of the employees are as follows: high school (11.9%),
2-year college degree (10.5%), bachelor’s degree (56.5%), and graduate
degree (21.0%). The supervisor sample included 71.3% males with an aver-
age age of 40.6 years (SD = 9.06) and an average organizational tenure of 9.1
years (SD = 7.55). Detailed descriptions of the samples from the two coun-
tries are presented in Table 1.
Measures
The participating employees reported the predictors and moderating variable,
whereas their supervisors rated the two types of creativity. All constructs
were assessed using multiitem measures with a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The scales included were prepared in
English, translated into Swedish and Korean, and then translated back into
English to check for validity of the translated items (Brislin, 1981).
Job complexity. We adopted items from the Work Design Questionnaire
(Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006) to assess job complexity. The scale included
the following four items (α = .78): (a) “The tasks on the job are simple and
uncomplicated” (reverse coded), (b) “The job requires me to simultaneously
keep track of more than one thing,” (c) “The job involves solving problems
with no obvious correct answer,” and (d) “The job comprises relatively
uncomplicated tasks” (reverse coded).
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
11
Table 1. Sample Characteristics.
Demographic information
Employees Supervisors
Whole sample
(n = 143)
Swedish
(n = 87)
Korean
(n = 56)
Whole sample
(n = 143)
Swedish
(n = 87)
Korean
(n = 56)
Gender (%; female) 46.2 44.8 48.2 28.7 34.5 19.6
Age 34.0 (SD = 10.30) 37.5 (SD = 11.41) 28.5(SD = 4.46) 40.6 (SD = 9.06) 43.7 (SD = 8.67) 35.9(SD = 7.52)
Organizational tenure 6.5 (SD = 9.28) 9.4 (SD = 10.81) 2.0 (SD = 2.31) 9.1 (SD = 7.55) 11.7 (SD = 7.34) 5.2 (SD = 6.11)
Functional area
General management (%) 35.7 24.2 53.6 35.7 24.2 53.6
Sales (%) 16.8 19.5 12.5 16.8 19.5 12.5
R&D (%) 25.2 28.7 19.6 25.2 28.7 19.6
Production (%) 22.4 27.6 14.3 22.4 27.6 14.3
Education
High school (%) 11.9 14.9 7.1 7.7 10.3 3.6
2-year college degree (%) 10.5 12.6 7.1 10.5 12.6 7.1
Bachelor’s degree (%) 56.5 51.7 64.3 52.4 48.3 58.9
Graduate degree (%) 21.0 20.7 21.4 29.4 28.7 30.4
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
12 Group & Organization Management
Psychological empowerment. Drawing on Spreitzer’s scale (1995), we used an
eight-item scale (α = .80) to assess the four subdimensions of psychological
empowerment: (a) significance (“The work I do is meaningful to me” and
“The work I do is very important to me”), (b) efficacy (“I am confident about
my ability to do my job” and “I have mastered the skills necessary for my
job”), (c) autonomy (“I have considerable opportunity for independence and
freedom in how I do my job” and “I can decide on my own how to go about
doing my work”), and (d) impact (“I have significant influence over what
happens in my department” and “I have a great deal of control over what hap-
pens in my department”).
Cognitive overload. Adopting items from the Task Load Index developed by
Hart and Staveland (1988), we measured cognitive overload by using the fol-
lowing three items (α = .82): (a) “My job is mentally demanding,” (b) “The
pace of my job is hurried and rushed,” and (c) “I have to work hard to accom-
plish my level of performance.”
Ambiguity tolerance. Adopting items from Furnham and Ribchester (1995),
we measured ambiguity tolerance by using a four-item scale (α = .88): (a) “I
really dislike instances when a person does not give straight answers about
himself or herself,” (b) “I am bothered when I do not know how strangers
react to me,” (c) “I get very anxious if I am uncertain about the responsibili-
ties of a job,” and (d) “I feel very uncomfortable in a decision-making situa-
tion in which there is not enough information to solve the problem” (all items
were reverse coded).
Proactive and responsive creativity. Extant empirical studies that differentiate
creativity types have focused on the magnitude of creative contributions,
such as incremental versus radical creativity (Gilson et al., 2012; Madjar
et al., 2011). Although Unsworth (2001) suggested a conceptual typology for
proactive and responsive creativity, this typology has yet to be empirically
validated. The lack of existing measures requires us to thoroughly review
previous discussions on proactive and responsive creativity, and examine
existing measures of creativity, and develop 20 potential items for proactive
and responsive creativity. We then employed the Q-sort procedure, a quanti-
tative tool for examining opinions and assessments (Brown, 1986). Ten
experts, including professors and doctoral students of organizational behav-
ior, participated in the current Q-sort. On the basis of our theoretical account,
the experts classified the 20 items into the two categories of creativity. Only
10 items were unanimously categorized by the experts and thus retained for
the current study.
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Sung et al. 13
Proactive creativity was assessed using a five-item scale (α = .92) rated by
the supervisors. The scale included the following items: “This employee (a)
suggests new ways of performing work in a proactive manner, (b) makes
substantial voluntary and creative contributions in his or her work, (c) is a
good source of unexpected creative solutions, (d) suggests creative ideas in
an independent and proactive manner, and (e) suggests useful ideas and solu-
tions even without a specific problem to solve.” Supervisors also rated
responsive creativity by using the following five-item scale (α = .86): “This
employee (a) exerts acceptable creative efforts but rarely exceeds require-
ments, (b) comes up with creative solutions with guidance, (c) suggests cre-
ative solutions only when told to do so, (d) responds properly to the
requirements of creative effort, and (e) suggest new ideas and solutions when
presented with a specific problem to solve.”
Control variables. Considering the implications of demographic variables for
employee creative behavior (Chen, Farh, Campbell-Bush, & Wu, 2013; De
Stobbeleir, Ashford, & Buyens, 2011; Zhang & Bartol, 2010), we controlled
for the effects of gender (0 = male, 1 = female), age (in years), tenure (in
years), and education (1 = less than high school, 2 = high school, 3 = 2-year
college, 4 = bachelor’s degree, 5 = graduate degree). Given the significance
of job type or job requirement for creativity (Shalley et al., 2009; Unsworth
et al., 2005), the functional area of employees (1 = general management, 2 =
sales, 3 = production, 4 = R&D) was also controlled for in our analysis. Con-
sidering that the cognitive style, corresponding attitudes, and behavior of
employees are affected by cultural and national contexts (Hofstede, 2001),
we also controlled for the effects of nationality (0 = Korean, 1 = Swedish).
Analytic Strategy
The current research framework suggests differentiated indirect effects of job
complexity on various types of employee creativity as moderated by their
ambiguity tolerance levels. To test this moderated mediation model, we
adopted the procedure suggested by Edwards and Lambert (2007). This
approach tests moderated mediation by using the following three steps. First,
we estimated the effects of the independent variable (job complexity) and the
mediating variables (psychological empowerment and cognitive overload)
on the dependent variables (proactive and responsive creativity). This first
step is equivalent to the tests of the first four hypotheses in the present study.
Second, we tested if the moderator (ambiguity tolerance) affects the relation-
ship between the independent variable (job complexity) and mediating vari-
ables (psychological empowerment and cognitive overload). Third, we
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
14 Group & Organization Management
verified whether the indirect effects of the independent variable (job com-
plexity) on the dependent variables (proactive and responsive creativity)
through each mediator (psychological empowerment or cognitive overload)
vary contingent on high and low levels of the moderator (ambiguity
tolerance).
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used for the first and sec-
ond step estimates. We mean centered all predictor variables before calculat-
ing the cross-product terms to minimize any potential problems of
multicollinearity among main effect variables and their interaction terms
(Aiken & West, 1991; Katrichis, 1993). The variance inflation factors were
below 2 for all variables in the current analysis, indicating that multicol-
linearity is not a serious threat. For the third step, we tested the significance
of the indirect effects of job complexity on proactive and responsive creativ-
ity at high and low levels of ambiguity tolerance by bootstrapping 1,000
samples to obtain bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs; Preacher, Rucker,
& Hayes, 2007).
Results
The scales for proactive and responsive creativity were developed in the pres-
ent study. Thus, we conducted an explorative factor analysis (EFA) using the
principal components analysis, which is appropriate for testing formative
models (Judge & Zapata, 2015). This analysis showed that all items in the
two creativity scales were highly comparable in their factor loadings. For the
five proactive creativity items, the factor loadings on the corresponding fac-
tor ranged between .82 and .87 with cross-loadings ranging between −.19 and
−.11. For the five responsive creativity items, the factor loadings on the cor-
responding factor ranged between .76 and .82 with cross-loadings ranging
between −.20 and −.03. Overall, the two creativity factors were clearly identi-
fied, and the item with the lowest factor loading did not exhibit a substantial
cross-loading in both scales, thereby exhibiting the discriminant and conver-
gent validity of the two scales.
We then tested the empirical distinctiveness of all measures by factor ana-
lyzing the 19 items that comprise the four scales rated by the employees and
the 10 items that comprise the two creativity scales rated by the supervisors
(Price, Choi, & Vinokur, 2002). A four-factor model of the four scales rated
by employees indicated good fit with the data, χ2(df = 128) = 158.57, p = .04;
comparative fit index (CFI) = .98; root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) = .041, and performed better than any alternative three-, two-, and
single-factor models (all p < .001). A two-factor model for proactive and
responsive creativity also presented good fit, χ2(df = 32) = 52.54, p = .02; CFI
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Sung et al. 15
= .98; RMSEA = .067, and provided a significantly better fit to the data than
the alternative single-factor model (p < .001).2Overall, the results of the con-
firmatory factor analysis demonstrate the empirical distinctiveness of the
scales used. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of and the correlations
among all study variables.
Hypothesis Testing
Main effects. In Hypotheses 1 and 2, we posit that job complexity is signifi-
cantly associated with the proactive and responsive creativity of employees.
As reported in Model 2 of Table 4, job complexity was significantly related
to proactive creativity (β = .29, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was confirmed.
By contrast, job complexity did not significantly predict responsive creativ-
ity. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was rejected (Model 6, Table 4).
Mediating effects. Hypotheses 3 and 4 posit that psychological empowerment
and cognitive overload mediate the effects of job complexity on proactive
and responsive creativity, respectively. Job complexity was significantly
related to both psychological empowerment (β = .34, p < .001; Model 2,
Table 3) and cognitive overload (β = .31, p < .01; Model 5, Table
3). Psychological empowerment, in turn, significantly predicted proactive
creativity (β = .24, p < .01; Model 3, Table 4), whereas cognitive overload
predicted responsive creativity (β = .17, p < .05; Model 7, Table 4). Follow-
ing recent recommendations (MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007), we fur-
ther validated our mediation hypotheses by product-of-coefficient approach
in which the statistical significance of the indirect effects was tested using a
bootstrapping procedure. The procedure supported the indirect effect of job
complexity on proactive creativity through psychological empowerment
(point estimate = 0.06, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.13]). The indirect effect of job
complexity on responsive creativity via cognitive overload was also signifi-
cant (point estimate = 0.07, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.15]). Thus, the present data
supported Hypotheses 3 and 4.
Moderated mediation effects. Hypotheses 5 and 6 suggest that ambiguity toler-
ance moderates the indirect effects of job complexity on proactive and respon-
sive creativity via psychological empowerment and cognitive overload.
Drawing on Edwards and Lambert (2007), we first tested if ambiguity toler-
ance moderates the relationships between job complexity and psychological
reactions. As reported in Model 3 of Table 3, ambiguity tolerance exhibited
significant interaction with job complexity in predicting psychological
empowerment (β = .23, p < .01). We conducted a simple slope analysis to
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
16
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Study Variables.
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Gender (female) 0.46 0.50 —
2. Age 33.97 10.30 .13 —
3. Education 3.87 0.88 .08 −.01 —
4. Tenure 6.49 9.28 .12 .86** −.16 —
5. Sales 0.12 0.33 .01 −.14 −.28** −.12 —
6. Production 0.17 0.38 −.08 −.10 −.10 −.06 −.17* —
7. R&D 0.21 0.41 −.17* .19* .25** −.01 −.19* −.23** —
8. Nationality (Swedish) 0.61 0.49 −.03 .43* −.12 .39** .29** .36** .24** —
9. Job complexity 4.25 0.99 .04 .37** .09 .33** .12 −.48** .28** .10 —
10. Ambiguity tolerance 3.24 1.03 −.14 .06 .15 −.01 .03 .09 .16 .21* –.06 —
11. Psychological empowerment 4.00 0.74 .10 .06 .10 .06 .15 .03 .03 .08 .26** .24** —
12. Cognitive overload 3.76 1.14 −.01 −.12 −.08 −.05 −.01 −.33** −.11 −.44** .25** −.46** −.14 —
13. Proactive creativity 3.98 1.03 −.02 .27** .36** .21* −.03 −.22** .13 .08 .39** .25** .31** −.13 —
14. Responsive creativity 3.41 0.91 −.13 −.39** −.05 −.44** .27** −.14 −.03 −.31** −.08 −.30** −.33** .27** −.29** —
Note. Unit of analysis is individual (N = 143).
*p < .05. **p < .01.
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Sung et al. 17
further probe this significant interaction (Aiken & West, 1991). The two
regression lines shown in Plot A of Figure 2 demonstrated that the effect of job
complexity on psychological empowerment was positive for employees with
high ambiguity tolerance (b = 1.12, p < .001) but insignificant for those with
low ambiguity tolerance (b = .17, ns). In addition, ambiguity tolerance exhib-
ited a significant negative interaction with job complexity in predicting cogni-
tive overload (β = −.20, p < .01; Model 6, Table 3). Plot B of Figure 2 confirms
that the effect of job complexity on cognitive overload was significant and
positive for employees with low ambiguity tolerance (b = 1.17, p < .001) but
insignificant for those with high ambiguity tolerance (b = .19, ns).
We further verified if the indirect effects of job complexity change at dif-
ferent levels of ambiguity tolerance (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Preacher
et al., 2007). Table 5 summarizes the results of the bootstrapping analysis,
including all control variables as covariates. The conditional indirect effect of
job complexity on proactive creativity through psychological empowerment
was stronger and significant for employees with high ambiguity tolerance
(point estimate = 0.16, 95% CI = [0.05, 0.34]) but insignificant for those with
Table 3. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Employee
Psychological Responses (N = 143).
Predictors
Psychological empowerment Cognitive overload
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Gender (female) .11 .11 .15 −.04 −.03 −.09
Age −.04 −.07 −.07 −.09 −.12 −.10
Education .19 .16 .08 −.10 −.14 −.04
Tenure .26 .18 .17 .20 .13 .11
Sales .38** .33** .33** .10 .06 .07
Production .26* .39** .39** −.14 −.02 .01
R&D .20 .14 .14 .03 −.02 .01
Nationality (Swedish) −.23 −.24 −.28* −.48*** −.49*** −.42***
Job complexity
(JobComp)
.34*** .39*** .31** .27**
Ambiguity tolerance
(AmbTol)
.18* −.36***
JobComp × AmbTol .23** −.20**
R2.10 .17 .26 .26 .32 .50
ΔR2.07** .09*** .06** .18***
Note. Standardized beta coefficients are shown.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
18 Group & Organization Management
low ambiguity tolerance (point estimate = 0.04, 95% CI = [−0.01, 0.12]),
which confirmed Hypothesis 5. Bootstrapping analysis also demonstrated
that the indirect effect of job complexity on responsive creativity through
cognitive overload was positive and significant for employees with low
ambiguity tolerance (point estimate = 0.08, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.16]) but not for
those with high ambiguity tolerance (point estimate = 0.01, 95% CI = [−0.03,
0.07]), which supported Hypothesis 6.
Post Hoc Analysis
We performed three sets of post hoc analysis to check the robustness of our
findings. First, we checked the possibility of curvilinear effects of job com-
plexity on psychological reactions and creativity, as suggested and reported
Table 4. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Employee
Creativity (N = 143).
Predictors
Proactive creativity Responsive creativity
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8
Gender (female) −.11 −.11 −.13 −.12 −.09 −.09 −.09 −.06
Age .15 .12 .14 .10 .11 .11 .13 .13
Education .41*** .38*** .34*** .32*** −.05 −.05 −.03 .01
Tenure .09 .03 −.02 .03 −.31* −.31 −.33* −.30*
Sales .03 −.01 −.09 −.08 .40*** .40*** .39*** .55***
Production −.22* −.11 −.20 −.20 .10 .09 .09 .26**
R&D −.10 −.14 −.18 −.18 .15 .15 .15 .21*
Nationality
(Swedish)
.12 .11 .17 .07 −.43** −.43** −.34* −.48***
Job complexity
(JobComp)
.29** .21* .24* −.02 −.07 .18*
Ambiguity
tolerance
(AmbTol)
.09 −.24**
JobComp ×
AmbTol
−.05 .20**
Psychological
empowerment
.24** .20* −.40***
Cognitive
overload
−.15 .17* .02
R2.25 .30 .35 .38 .33 .33 .35 .54
ΔR2.05** .05** .03 .00 .02* .19***
Note. Standardized beta coefficients are shown.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Sung et al. 19
in prior studies (Byron et al., 2010). The results indicated that the quadratic
term of job complexity was not significantly related to any of the psychologi-
cal reactions and creativity measures (all p > .10). Thus, job complexity in the
current data exerted only linear effects on other study variables.
Second, considering that the cognitive style, corresponding attitudes, and
behavior of employees are affected by cultural and national contexts, we col-
lected data from two countries to increase the generalizability of our research
findings. Nevertheless, the research design also raises the possibility that the
current sample is a mixture of two separate empirical patterns. Thus, we pro-
ceeded to check if the examined relationships are significantly different across
the two samples (from Sweden and Korea). We tested the significance of
nationality as a moderator of the regression coefficients included in the current
analyses and found that the positive effects of job complexity on psychologi-
cal empowerment and cognitive overload were slightly weaker among
Swedish employees (β for the interaction between complexity and nationality
= −.15 and −.12, respectively, both p < .10) than among Koreans. By contrast,
the link between job complexity and responsive creativity was stronger for the
Swedish sample (β for the interaction term = .18, p < .05) than for the Korean
sample. These patterns indicate that compared with Korean employees, the
psychological reactions of Swedish employees to job complexity were slightly
weaker but tended to exhibit more responsive creativity. Despite differences in
regression coefficients, our follow-up subgroup analysis suggested that the
overall relational patterns remained the same in the two subsamples. This
observation assured the robustness of the findings from the overall sample.
Figure 2. Interaction between job complexity and ambiguity tolerance in
predicting psychological empowerment and cognitive overload of employees.
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
20
Table 5. Bootstrapped Moderated Mediation Analysis.
Independent
variable Moderator Mediator
Dependent
variable Moderator level
Conditional
indirect effect
Product of
coefficients
Bootstrapping
bias-corrected
95% CI
SE Z P Lower Upper
Job
complexity
Ambiguity
tolerance
Psychological
empowerment
Proactive
creativity
High (M + 1SD).16 0.07 2.39 <.05 0.05 0.34
Medium .10 0.04 2.34 <.05 0.03 0.21
Low (M − 1SD) .04 0.03 1.11 ns −0.01 0.12
Cognitive
overload
Responsive
creativity
High (M + 1SD) .01 0.02 0.44 ns −0.03 0.07
Medium .04 0.03 1.75 <.10 0.01 0.11
Low (M − 1SD).08 0.04 2.02 <.05 0.01 0.16
Post hoc analysis
Job
complexity
Ambiguity
tolerance
Psychological
empowerment
Responsive
creativity
High (M + 1SD)−.24 0.06 3.66 <.001 −0.38 −0.13
Medium −.15 0.04 3.35 <.001 −0.25 −0.07
Low (M − 1SD) −.05 0.05 1.15 ns −0.16 0.03
Cognitive
overload
Proactive
creativity
High (M + 1SD) −.02 0.03 0.46 ns −0.10 0.04
Medium −.07 0.04 1.80 <.10 −0.15 −0.01
Low (M − 1SD)−.12 0.06 2.01 <.05 −0.25 −0.02
Note. Bootstrap sample size = 1,000. Coefficients in bold indicate significant mediation. CI = confidence interval; ns = not significant.
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Sung et al. 21
Third, we hypothesized separate pathways from psychological empower-
ment and cognitive overload to proactive and responsive creativity, respec-
tively. However, the psychological reactions may possibly predict both types
of creativity. Thus, we tested the significance of these alternative pathways.
As reported in the lower half of Table 5, job complexity exerted a significant
negative indirect effect on responsive creativity through psychological
empowerment when ambiguity tolerance was high (point estimate = −0.24,
95% CI = [−0.38, −0.13]), but not when it was low (point estimate = −0.05,
95% CI = −[0.16, 0.03]). Similarly, job complexity exhibited a significant
negative indirect effect on proactive creativity through cognitive overload
when ambiguity tolerance was low (point estimate = −0.12, 95% CI = [−0.25,
−0.02]), but not when it was high (point estimate = −0.02, 95% CI = [−0.10,
0.04]). The post hoc analysis indicated that the two mediating psychological
responses manifested significant implications for both types of creativity.
Discussion
The present study highlights the need for distinguishing proactive from
responsive forms of creativity on the basis of different psychological and
individual predictors. Consistent with our theoretical propositions, the cur-
rent analysis of dyadic data from the two countries indicated that job com-
plexity engenders proactive and responsive creativity through distinct
psychological reactions differentially activated by ambiguity tolerance. In
the following sections, we discuss the implications of the study and consider
its limitations along with the directions for further research.
Implications for Theory and Research
Acknowledging the limitation of a unitary approach to creativity as a general
and broad construct, scholars highlighted the need to study different creativ-
ity types (Madjar et al., 2011; Shalley et al., 2004). This analysis is important
to develop an ecologically valid explanation of creativity in organizations. As
scholars recognized the multifaceted nature of creativity, they often focused
on the magnitude of creative contribution, which ranges from minor adapta-
tions to radical breakthroughs (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). This distinc-
tion assimilates the common differences between incremental versus radical
innovation or exploitation versus exploration (Gilson et al., 2012; Sternberg,
1999).
In contrast to previous studies that consider different magnitudes of cre-
ative contribution, we focus on the driver or initiating force underlying the
creativity. Although the conceptual distinction between proactive and
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
22 Group & Organization Management
responsive creativity has been proposed in the literature (Kaufmann, 2004;
Unsworth, 2001), it is yet to be empirically validated. The current study pres-
ents an initial empirical investigation on the distinction between proactive
and responsive creativity, which further enriches the literature on organiza-
tional creativity. The two ways of identifying types of creativity (i.e., radical
vs. incremental and proactive vs. responsive) are related but not redundant
because they involve different stages of creativity. That is, the former deals
with the nature of the resulting outcome, whereas the latter addresses the
motivational or initiating force. These different creativity types can be related
to one another (e.g., sequential, complementary, competing) and offer intrigu-
ing theoretical and practical ramifications.
In this study, we theoretically and empirically investigated the possibility
of the emergence of different creativity types from the same task design that
can instigate different psychological states among employees. By providing
psychological empowerment and accompanying active task orientation, job
complexity may stimulate cognitive flexibility and persistence among
employees and enable them to proactively engage in creative behavior
(Shalley et al., 2009). Job complexity, as the core work stressor, also insti-
gates strain, such as cognitive overload, which leads to a reactive and passive
work behavior, such as responsive creativity (Lepine et al., 2005).
An intriguing direction to improve the current study is to broaden the con-
cept of job complexity by integrating social, political, and relational elements
of work which are overlooked but considered critical components of job
design (Humphrey et al., 2007). These relational/social factors can form or
sometimes constrain the effect of the workers’ own interpretation of their task
(Grant & Parker, 2009). This possibility requires broader conceptualization
of job design in highly team-oriented contexts with increasing task interde-
pendence in current organizations (Humphrey et al., 2007). Thus, future stud-
ies should examine how proactive and responsive creativity are predicted by
job complexity and other job-design factors, which reflect task properties and
socio-political relations, to provide non-redundant accounts of a job beyond
its motivational characteristics.
Finally, the analysis demonstrates that employee ambiguity tolerance is a
critical contingency for channeling the indirect effects of job complexity to
the two creativity types. Individuals do not respond to challenging stressors
in a similar manner (Lepine et al., 2005). As such, employees with high
ambiguity tolerance experience psychological empowerment from job com-
plexity, whereas those with low ambiguity tolerance interpret job complexity
as cognitive overload (Figure 2). The moderated mediation analysis reveals
the formation of distinct paths from job complexity toward proactive and
responsive creativity at different ambiguity tolerance levels. To be consistent
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Sung et al. 23
but also expand the basic tenet of trait-activation theory (Frese, Garst, & Fay,
2007), the current results imply that the same situation activates different
psychological and behavioral reactions among individuals according to their
personal dispositions. The multitude of trait-activation patterns within simi-
lar contexts should further enrich the theoretical account of person–situation
interactions in organizations.
Implications for Practice
The present findings offer critical implications for practicing managers.
Similar to how incremental and radical innovations serve different organiza-
tional goals (Gilson et al., 2012; Madjar et al., 2011), the value of proactive
and responsive creativity may differ depending on the task and social milieu
(e.g., task goal, performance strategy, and social surroundings of focal
employees). For example, proactive creativity is preferred when the person
or work unit operates in an uncertain task environment to determine adaptive
solutions for unstructured problems (Sung & Choi, 2012). By contrast,
responsive creativity may be preferred by teams that operate under relatively
stable conditions for the reliable implementation of routine procedures. In
this work environment, proactive creativity can distract the team and destabi-
lize coordinated efforts.
Once the desired creativity type is specified, managers can initiate inter-
ventions to channel the creative efforts of employees toward a specified
direction. Our analysis indicates that inducing psychological empowerment
among employees, such as perceptions of significance, autonomy, compe-
tence, and impact, can effectively promote the voluntary search for opportu-
nities and solutions to new problems. By contrast, when responsive creativity
is preferred, managers can intentionally reduce slack or additional resources,
so that employees are fully occupied with their tasks. Managers can also
clearly establish the norms related to employee creativity and voice; as such,
unsolicited suggestions or challenges regarding existing task processes are
unwelcome, and employees are required to concentrate on problems identi-
fied by their managers.
Finally, managers should recruit or promote employees with different lev-
els of ambiguity tolerance depending on the favorable creativity type. When
proactive creativity is desirable, managers should recruit or train employees
to equip them with sufficient skills and abilities for performing complex jobs
and properly dealing with cognitive challenges; without training, employees
will interpret a challenging situation as a threat and a source of strain (Elsbach
& Hargadon, 2006; Xie & Johns, 1995). Ambidextrous managers can imple-
ment efficient division of labor depending on individual differences, such
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
24 Group & Organization Management
that certain employees exhibit proactive creativity to actively explore new
possibilities, whereas others reactively deal with specific problems encoun-
tered during routine performance. The former instigates exploratory learning
and knowledge creation, whereas the latter facilitates creative knowledge
transfer by discovering alternative ways to redesign existing procedure, spec-
ify problems, and search for better solution (cf. knowledge creation theory,
Nonaka & Krogh, 2009). To this end, organizations may offer leadership
training and development programs to help managers decide regarding the
preferred types of creativity in a timely manner; consequently, managers
would be capable to initiate interventions by allocating resources, selecting
right people, and guiding creative efforts to the right direction, contingent on
the situational needs and organizational goals.
Study Limitations and Directions for Future Research
The present findings should be cautiously interpreted by considering several
limitations. First, the causal directions among the constructs may not be defi-
nite because all study variables were simultaneously collected. Future studies
should adopt a longitudinal or field-experimental research design. Second,
we constructed scales to measure the two creativity types that are yet to be
empirically investigated. Additional empirical efforts are necessary to vali-
date the new scale through comparison with existing creativity scales in vari-
ous settings. Third, the current sample comprises dyadic pairs of employees
and their supervisors. Considering that leader behavior, group climate, and
interactive dynamics among members are strong drivers of member creativ-
ity (Anderson et al., 2014), we propose that the emergence of proactive and
responsive creativity should be investigated in the context of groups.
Fourth, although we controlled for the job type, the characteristics of the
current participants with moderate levels of creativity may have affected the
observed patterns. Future studies should validate the current findings by
using diverse samples of individuals performing engineering or even artistic
tasks, such as those involved in design, advertisement, or entertainment, who
are characterized by varied levels of proactive and responsive creativity. The
present data also show the high correlations among employee education,
R&D, and job complexity, all of which would likely entail proactive forms of
creativity. Thus, future studies should examine the cognitive capacities or
talents of employees and the task styles expected in specific job functions,
such as in R&D, in relation to the emergence of different forms of creativity
(Haerem & Rau, 2007).
Finally, the present data indicate that Swedish employees are more toler-
ant than Korean employees to ambiguous situations and are less prone to
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Sung et al. 25
exhibit cognitive overload and psychological empowerment when encounter-
ing job complexity; as such, Swedish employees are more psychologically
stable or less reactive to job context. These findings demonstrate that the
cognitive styles, attitudes, and behavior of employees are considerably
affected by cultural and national contexts. Future studies should explore the
possibility that various cultural values differentially affect the formation of
intermediate psychological states and types of creativity.
Despite these limitations, the present study responds to the calls for a
nuanced perspective on creativity-inducing processes (George, 2007) and
expands the emerging efforts to distinguish among conceptually different
types of creativity (Madjar et al., 2011). Given the inceptive nature of various
creativity typologies, particularly the proactive versus responsive creativity
types, further conceptual and empirical endeavors should identify their
unique nomological networks and boundary contingencies. In the present
study, we regarded psychological empowerment and cognitive overload as
critical intervening psychological states. Nevertheless, other constructs, such
as positive or negative moods, cognitive flexibility, and personal initiative
(Elsbach & Hargadon, 2006), can provide additional plausible mechanisms
that account for the effects of job-design factors on various creativity types.
In addition, although we proposed ambiguity tolerance as a moderator, it
can be considered as a mediator based on the assumption that ambiguity tol-
erance is changeable across situations and trainable instead of being a trait-
like individual disposition. In this respect, future research should examine
job-related or job-specific ambiguity tolerance of employees to provide
sophisticated understanding of distinct cognitive orientations, job-complex-
ity interpretation, and resulting patterns of employee creativity. Complex
jobs with high uncertainty impose psychological and cognitive loads, thereby
instigating people to avoid ambiguity and resort to established modes of per-
formance instead of staying open to new possibilities and being proactive to
creative opportunities (cf. flow theory; Czikszentmihalyi, 1990). In this
regard, future research could further examine the intervening role of ambigu-
ity tolerance in predicting creativity.
Future studies should investigate the potential moderating effects of per-
sonal characteristics, such as growth-need strength, promotion focus, and
openness to experience, in addition to ambiguity tolerance; these characteris-
tics may allow individuals to persevere or thrive under challenging tasks
(Sacramento et al., 2013; Shalley et al., 2009). In addition, future research
may examine the moderating effects of diverse situational contingencies,
such as leader behavior, environmental turbulence, and reward contingen-
cies, in the job complexity–creativity relationship (Anderson et al., 2014).
The potential main and moderating functions of various task and social
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
26 Group & Organization Management
contextual factors may reveal new insights to advance our understanding of
the emergence of diverse forms of creativity in organizations.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
This work was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea
funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2011-327-B00208) and the Institute of
Management Research and Institute of Industrial Relations at Seoul National
University, Korea.
Notes
1. Unsworth (2001) identified distinct motivational drivers or triggers that initiate
four types of creativity (i.e., responsive, expected, contributory, and proactive) by
highlighting why people exhibit creativity (external demands vs. internal moti-
vation) and what triggers their engagement (i.e., open problems to be discovered
vs. closed problems presented as task requirements). A closed problem is a task
requirement and specified by the task and context, whereas an open problem
is identified by people who search for and discover problems. Responsive cre-
ativity can be observed when the driver of creativity is external and a specific
problem to be solved is presented (e.g., creativity test). By contrast, expected
creativity can be found when the driver is external, but the problem itself is open
(e.g., quality circles and total quality management). Contributory creativity is
internally driven or self-determined, but based on a clearly formulated problem
(e.g., helping others to solve a specific problem not directly related to own task).
Proactive creativity is self-determined efforts for actively searching for opportu-
nities and solutions to new, unspecified problems (e.g., volunteered new sugges-
tions without any expectations or requests). Among the four types of creativity,
we focus on proactive and responsive creativity, which are the most clearly dis-
tinguishable types.
2. The present data showed a significant negative correlation between ambiguity
tolerance and responsive creativity (r = −.30, p < .01). Given the significant
correlation and conceptual relatedness between ambiguity tolerance and respon-
sive creativity, we conducted a follow-up exploratory factor analysis. For the
four ambiguity tolerance items, the factor loadings on the corresponding factor
ranged between .72 and .83 with cross-loadings ranging between −.19 and −.03.
For the five responsive creativity items, the factor loadings on the corresponding
factor ranged between .70 and .84 with cross-loadings ranging between −.29 and
−.04. Thus, ambiguity tolerance and responsive creativity were clearly identified
as separate factors and did not show substantial cross-loadings.
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Sung et al. 27
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing
the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 5,
1154-1184.
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in orga-
nizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding
framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297-1333.
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engage-
ment: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress:
An International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations, 22, 187-200.
Brislin, R. (1981). Cross–cultural encounters: Face-to-face interaction. New York,
NY: Pergamon.
Brown, S. R. (1986). Q technique and method: Principles and procedures. In W. E.
Berry & M. S. Lewis-Beck (Eds.), New tools for social scientists (pp. 57-76).
Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stress-
ors and creativity: A meta–analysis examining competing theoretical models.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 201-212.
Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Campbell-Bush, E. M., & Wu, Z. (2013). Teams as innova-
tive systems: Multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 1018-1027.
Choi, J. N., Sung, S. Y., & Cho, T. S. (2014). Creative contribution as the creative
performance of individuals in groups: Effects of goal orientation and participa-
tive safety. Social Behavior and Personality, 42, 407-422.
Czikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New
York, NY: Harper & Row.
De Stobbeleir, K. E. M., Ashford, S. J., & Buyens, D. (2011). Self–regulation of cre-
ativity at work: The role of feedback–seeking behavior in creative performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 54, 811-831.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and
mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis.
Psychological Methods, 12, 1-22.
Elsbach, K. D., & Hargadon, A. B. (2006). Enhancing creativity through “mindless”
work: A framework of workday design. Organization Science, 17, 470-483.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., Bruursema, K., & Kessler, S. R. (2012). The deviant
citizen: Measuring potential positive relations between counterproductive work
behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 85, 199-220.
Frese, M., Garst, H., & Fay, D. (2007). Making things happen: Reciprocal relation-
ships between work characteristics and personal initiative in a four–wave longitu-
dinal structural equation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1084-1102.
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
28 Group & Organization Management
Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent
literature. Psychology, 4, 717-728.
Furnham, A., & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the con-
cept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology, 14, 179-199.
Gagne, M., Senecal, C., & Koestner, R. (1997). Proximal job characteristics, feelings
of empowerment, and intrinsic motivation: A multidimensional model. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1222-1240.
George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management
Annals, 1, 439-477.
Gilson, L., Lim, H. S., D’Innocenzo, L., & Moye, N. (2012). One size does not fit
all: Managing radical and incremental creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior,
46, 168-191.
Gorgievsky, M. J., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2008). Work can burn us out and fire us up:
Conservation of resources in burnout and engagement. In J. R. B. Halbesleben
(Ed.), Handbook of stress and burnout in healthcare (pp. 7-22). Hauppauge, NY:
Nova Science.
Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of inven-
tion: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective–taking, and creativity.
Academy of Management Journal, 54, 73-96.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of
relational and proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3,
317-375.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Motivation through the design of work:
Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-
279.
Haerem, T., & Rau, D. (2007). The influence of degree of expertise and objective task
complexity on perceived task complexity and performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 1320-1331.
Hallowell, E. M. (2005). Overloaded circuits: Why smart people underperform.
Harvard Business Review, 83, 1-9.
Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of a multi–dimensional work-
load rating scale: Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock
& N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139-183). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institu-
tions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motiva-
tional, social, and contextual work design features: A meta–analytic summary
and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 1332-1356.
Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2015). The person-situation debate revisited: Effect
of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the Big Five personal-
ity traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58,
1149-1179.
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Sung et al. 29
Katrichis, J. (1993). The conceptual implications of data centering in interactive
regression models. Journal of the Market Research Society, 35, 183-192.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of
creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1-12.
Kaufmann, G. (2004). Two kinds of creativity—But which ones? Creativity and
Innovation Management, 13, 154-165.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY:
Springer.
Lepine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lepine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the
challenge stressor—hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsis-
tent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 764-775.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58, 593-614.
Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incre-
mental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96, 730-743.
Merrotsy, P. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A trait of the creative personality?
Creativity Research Journal, 25, 232-237.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ):
Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and
the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321-1339.
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, appli-
cation, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27-43.
Nonaka, I., & Krogh, G. (2009). Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion:
Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory.
Organization Science, 20, 635–652.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contex-
tual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634.
Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: The
future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 463-479.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implica-
tions of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture.
Instructional Science, 32, 1-8.
Parker, P. A., & Kulik, J. A. (1995). Burnout, self-and supervisor-related job per-
formance, and absenteeism among nurses. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18,
581-599.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated media-
tion hypotheses: Theory, methods and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 42, 185-227.
Price, R. H., Choi, J. N., & Vinokur, D. A. (2002). Links in the chain of diversity fol-
lowing job loss: How financial strain and loss of personal control lead to depres-
sion, impaired functioning, and poor health. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 7, 302-312.
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
30 Group & Organization Management
Sacramento, C. A., Fay, D., & West, M. A. (2013). Workplace duties or opportu-
nities? Challenge stressors, regulatory focus, and creativity. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 141-157.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path
model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 1442-1465.
Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences
of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 981-1003.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of growth
need strength, work context, and job complexity on self–reported creative perfor-
mance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 489-505.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and con-
textual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of
Management, 30, 933-958.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Construct defini-
tion, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2012). Effects of team knowledge management on the
creativity and financial performance of organizational teams. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 4-13.
Teichner, W. H., Arees, E., & Reilly, R. (1963). Noise and human performance: A
psychophysiological approach. Ergonomics, 6, 83-97.
Thomas, K., & Velthouse, B. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “inter-
pretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15,
666-681.
To, M. L., Fisher, C. D., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Rowe, P. A. (2012). Within–person rela-
tionships between mood and creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 599-612.
Unsworth, K. L. (2001). Unpacking creativity. Academy of Management Review, 2,
289-297.
Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., & Carter, A. J. (2005). Creativity requirement: A
neglected construct in the field of employee creativity. Group & Organization
Management, 30, 541-560.
Wat, D., & Shaffer, M. A. (2005). Development and test of a social exchange model
of OCB: The mediating role of trust in supervisor and empowerment. Personnel
Review, 34, 406-422.
Wright, B. M., & Cordery, J. L. (1999). Production uncertainty as a contextual mod-
erator of employee reactions to job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
456-463.
Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. (1995). Job scope and stress: Can job scope be too high?
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1288-1309.
Zhang, X. M., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee
creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation and
creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 107-128.
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Sung et al. 31
Associate Editor: William Gardner
Submission Date: 5-Apr-2015
Revised Submission Date: 1-Nov-2015
Acceptance Date: 2-Nov-2015
Author Biographies
Sun Young Sung is assistant professor at Nanjing University, China. She earned her
PhD in international business from Seoul National University, South Korea. Her
research interests include knowledge management in teams and organizations, orga-
nizational demography, and innovative performance at multiple levels of analysis.
Andreas Antefelt is a human resource manager at Samsung Electronics, Korea. He
earned his master’s degree in organizational behavior from Seoul National University.
Jin Nam Choi is professor of management at Seoul National University, South
Korea. He earned his PhD in organizational psychology from the University of
Michigan. His research interests include innovation implementation, organizational
creativity, and multilevel processes of human behavior in organizations.
at Seoul National University on December 10, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
