Creativity and Firm-Level Performance: The Mediating Effects of Action Orientation
Weinzimmer, Laurence G., Michel, Eric J., Franczak, Jennifer L., Journal of Managerial Issues
Creativity was identified as the single most important attribute to future business success in a recent study that interviewed over 1,500 CEOs from 60 nations and 33 industries (IBM, 2010). Despite its popularity in industry, researchers have yet to find a conclusive empirical relationship showing that creativity impacts firm-level performance. A possible explanation is that while creativity may impact performance at many levels, it is the firm's ability to actually enact creativity that impacts firm-level performance.
Over the past thirty years, researchers have significantly advanced the collective understanding and knowledge of creativity as a latent construct and its impact on organizations, yet have limited attempts in linking creativity and firm-level performance. Considering that the vast majority of creativity research is grounded in the organizational behavior domain, there is significant opportunity for researchers to examine creativity across multiple levels of analysis, including organization theory and strategic management. The primary focus of this study is to offer empirical validation of the mediating effects of action orientation on the creativity-performance relationship.
Two possible rationalizations may exist regarding limited success in empirically assessing the link between creativity and performance. First, confusion exists between the concepts of creativity and innovation. Creativity has been defined as the production of original and functional ideas, while innovation has been defined as the employment of those ideas (c.f. Amabile, 1983, 1988). Innovation is the result of creativity (Amabile et al., 1996). However, researchers and managers use the concepts of creativity and innovation interchangeably. Although related, creativity and innovation are fundamentally and operationally different constructs. The creativity literature primarily operationalizes creativity as a psychological or latent construct (Amabile et al., 1996). In contrast, the innovation literature primarily operationalizes innovation using: (1) objective output measures such as new product/process introduction (Lyon and Ferrier, 2002), (2) awards and intellectual property such as patents (Griliches, 1990; Jaffe et al., 1998), and (3) objective input measures such as R&D expenditures (Singh, 1986). While the focus of the present study is to examine creativity, a discussion of implications regarding the creativity/innovation debate is offered in the implications section for future research.
Second, researchers have tested the direct relationship between creativity and performance; however, creativity may only have a modest impact on performance. Note that decades worth of research on innovation and intrapreneurship have discussed numerous benefits to firms that implement new innovations (c.f. Carrier, 1996; Goosen et al., 2002; Pinchot, 1985, 1987; Zahra, 1993, 1995). Using the same argument, this paper will investigate the possibility that the relationship between creativity and performance is mediated by the firm's ability to implement creative ideas.
Several significant studies have shaped the construct of creativity. Woodman et al. (1993) hypothesized creativity as a multilevel construct consisting of ten interrelated factors and directly linked individual creative performance to organizational creative performance. In this model, organizational creative performance was theoretically influenced by an array of characteristics including organizational culture, leadership, and organizational strategy. While previous studies only considered micro-level characteristics of creativity, examining creativity from a firm-level perspective, namely, examining creativity on firm-level performance, can holistically increase the understanding of creativity.
A comprehensive review of the extant creativity literature yields several attempts to empirically validate factors from the Woodman et al. (1993) study. Whereas creativity is a well-documented cultural phenomenon at individual (Amabile, 1997; Perry-Smith, 2006) and group levels (Amabile and Conti, 1999; Bain et al., 2001; Vera and Crossan, 2005), very few scholars have examined creativity as a cultural attribute from a strategic management perspective, let alone examine the relationship between creativity and organizational performance.
This is surprising considering that numerous researchers (Neuman and Wright, 1999; Woodman et al., 1993) have called for creativity studies to embrace multiple levels of analysis in order to understand the complexities associated with creativity. Taggar's (2002) work was the first study to empirically examine the simultaneous impact of individual and group level antecedents of team performance and to offer a model of creativity from a meso-perspective, yielding a latent variable model of team performance. Recently, Hargadon and Bechky (2006) developed a multiple-level theoretical model of individual and group level collective creativity and Hennessey and Amabile (2010) theorized a seven-level model of creativity ranging from neurological to an organizational-level systems approach. Of the few studies that have analyzed creativity at the organizational level (Bain et al., 2001; Burkhardt and Brass, 1990; Katz and Allen, 1985), these studies have considered creativity as the dependent variable.
With regard to the relationship between creativity and performance, previous studies have indicated inconsistent means in which to measure performance. This is due, in part, to the three levels of analysis researchers are employing to define the construct. From an individual level of analysis, performance is quantified as demonstrated creativity (Perry-Smith, 2006) and quality (Elsbach and Hargadon, 2006) in individual employee work outcomes. Performance from the group level of analysis has been quantified through several non-financial means. Elsbach and Hargadon (2006) denoted low absenteeism among group members contributing to increased group performance. Gilson et al. (2005) determined performance by measuring machine reliability, customer response time, and replacement parts expense among service technician teams. Vera and Crossan (2005) identified group performance as teamwork quality.
To date, only one study has attempted to empirically examine the relationship between creativity and organizational level performance. Von Nordenflycht (2007) observed a relationship between creativity and performance in 122 U.S. advertising agencies determining a positive, linear relationship between creativity and performance. It is argued that creativity results in competitive differentiation, resulting in firm-level success. In this study, performance was measured by three-year growth rates. However, results regarding the relationship between creativity and performance only explained minimal variance. Other previous research has yielded limited success when examining the relationship between performance factors such as revenue or profitability (c.f. Harper and Becker, 2004; Von Nordenflycht, 2007).
ACTION ORIENTATION AS A MEDIATOR
This paper argues that simply being creative is not sufficient in understanding the creativity-performance link. Similar to the psychology literature, the strategy literature also needs to consider the firm's ability to act on creative attributes. For example, if a firm has a strong focus on creativity, this does not mean that managers will enact the strategy. Rather, it is the firm's ability to take action that may determine the extent to which creativity impacts firm performance. Stated differently, a firm's propensity to take action--as a behavioral attribute--will mediate the relationship between creativity and firm performance.
Action orientation has been defined as individuals being able to make decisions and implement their cognitions, emotions, and behaviors in order to complete specific business related goals (Jaramillo and Spector, 2004). Subsequently, workers possessing initiative also led to higher levels of firm performance (Rashid et al, 2004; Stanley et al, 2005). Action-oriented group processes are also examined and thought to produce higher group performance (Johnston et al., 2007).
While research on action orientation is somewhat operationally limited in the organizational behavior literature, in the creativity literature it is virtually non-existent. Dobni and Luffman (2000) noted in their research that achieving sustainable competitive advantage is achieved by implementing strategy, not by formulating it. While there is limited discussion in the strategy implementation literature concerning action orientation, there is discussion of ability to change as a cultural dimension that may impact firm-level performance. Therefore, it is important to delineate any misunderstandings concerning similarity or confusion between the definition of action orientation and change.
Acceptance of change is the propensity to tolerate the changing environments and coming to terms with the need to change. In comparison, action orientation encompasses ability to take risk and action and implement change. Therefore, one would expect a relationship between change and action orientation. However, conceptually, there are differences. For example, a firm may have a strategy that focuses on maintaining the status quo, where action orientation could meditate the relationship between the status quo strategy and firm performance. At the same time, this firm may score relatively low on its propensity to change. So, even though the culture literature recognizes the acceptance of change as a cultural attribute, linking it to implementing technological, organizational, social, and personal change (Rashid et al., 2004; Stanley et al., 2005) conceptually is not the same as action orientation.
Thus, the present study attempts to develop an organizational-level measure of action orientation and to assess the degree to which this measure mediates the relationship between creativity and firm-level performance. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to address issues relating to the relationship between creativity, action orientation, and performance. First, this paper provides rationale for the mediating effects of action orientation on the creativity-performance relationship. In order to empirically demonstrate the mediating effects of action orientation on the creativity-firm performance relationship, it will be necessary to establish content validity and criterion-related validity of the action orientation measure by drawing on the organizational behavior literature to create specific dimensions of action orientation. Finally, this study concludes by delineating practical implications for researchers and professionals interested in examining the future creativity-performance relationships.
DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES
Research examining latent constructs such as culture and creativity and their impact on performance has considered performance as a multidimensional phenomenon. When examining firm-level performance specifically, organizational culture research has focused on measures of financial performance. Three measures of financial performance have been used in the creativity and/or innovation literature, including revenue growth (Deshpande et al., 1993; Von Nordenflycht, 2007), profit growth, and return on assets (ROA) (Chandler et al, 2000; Deshpande et al, 1993; Geroski, 2000). Specifically, Chandler and Hanks (1993) provided a validation study that empirically demonstrated the use of revenue and profit data as reliable measures when testing the impact of various strategies on firm-level performance. Therefore, to be consistent with previous research, this study also considers firm-level performance as a multidimensional phenomenon by including revenue growth, profit growth, and growth in ROA.
This study also assesses performance measures longitudinally, as the benefits of creativity may not be realized immediately. There is a substantial amount of research in the strategic management literature that considers the relationship between specific strategies and lagged measures of financial performance (Baliga et al, 1996; Hill et al, 1992). Three and five-year periods were chosen, as they are the most common time frames found in the strategic management literature.
Creativity, Action Orientation, and Performance
As seen in Figure 1, in order to test whether action orientation mediates the creativity-performance link, relationships must be demonstrated between: (1) creativity and performance; (2) creativity and action orientation; and (3) action orientation and performance (c.f., Baron and Kenny, 1986; MacKinnon et al., 2007).
Creativity leads to competitive advantage, which helps a company succeed in terms of multiple measures of firm-level financial performance (Deshpande et al, 1993). Note that previous research has already established the use of growth in revenues, profits, and ROA (c.f., Chandler and Hanks, 1993) as valid and reliable measures of firm-level performance.
In terms of revenue growth, organizations that exhibit creative behaviors generate competitive advantages (Woodman et al., 1993). Numerous studies have argued that competitive advantage leads to improvements in financial performance such as revenue growth (c.f., Barney, 1986; Porter, 1985). Specifically, Von Nordenflycht (2007) found modest empirical support for the impact of creativity on revenue growth rates.
In terms of profit growth and return on assets, creativity may often increase the short-term cost in an organization. Implementing new ideas to existing products and services may be expensive and not yield positive returns for an organization. However, over time, new ideas have the potential to increase profit growth in organizations (Calori and Sarnin, 1991). Moreover, Geroski (2000) suggested that firms will notice an increase of profit growth when encouraging creative behaviors. Thus, organizations that encourage creativity should experience increase in profit growth, and subsequently ROA, if sufficient time is observed.
While previous research has only found modest effects between creativity and financial performance, this study argues that introducing action orientation as a mediator will strengthen this relationship. Stated differently, a firm's ability to enact creativity, measured as a latent construct, will have a significant impact on financial performance.
Creativity is the proactive pursuit of new and innovative ideas that improve or change the status quo (Woodman et al, 1993). Action orientation is defined as the pursuit of proactive initiatives to enact change (Utsch et al., 1999). Therefore, given that creativity is a catalyst for change, combined with the definition that action orientation is the proactive pursuit of implementing change (Koole and Jostman, 2004; Utsch et al., 1999), there should be a positive relationship between creativity and action orientation, as creativity becomes an antecedent to action orientation. This does not imply, however, that creativity is a requisite for action orientation, as firms can have a high degree of action orientation to implement strategies that do not result from creative solutions. Note that specific hypotheses are not developed for this relationship, as the primary intent of this study is to assess the extent to which action orientation mediates the creativity performance relationship.
Finally, the only studies attempting to link action orientation to performance have defined performance at the individual level. Specifically, Diefendorff (2004) was able to empirically demonstrate that action orientation at the individual level was related to individual performance. Similarly, Bagozzi et al. (1992) attempted to link or describe roles of action orientation (ability to act) with state orientation (remaining inert). While this link may not initially appear to be pertinent to the creativity research, it shows action-orientation leads to improved performance.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Given that the present study investigates performance at the firm level, it is necessary to draw on the strategic-management implementation and innovation-management literatures to demonstrate the link between action orientation and financial performance. From a strategic-management perspective, Govindarajan (1988) argued that the ability to implement strategy--take action--leads to improved firm-level financial performance. Similarly, from the innovation-management literature, Klein and Sorra (1996) suggested that the ability of an organization to implement innovation or creativity should lead to improvements in performance. This is evidenced in numerous studies that demonstrate benefits to firms that implement new innovations (c.f. Carrier, 1996: Goosen et al., 2002; Pinchot, 1985, 1987; Zahra, 1993, 1995).
The strategic-management and innovation-management literatures parallel each other with regard to taking action and its impact on organizational performance. Subsequently, it is important for managers to understand and intentionally exert behaviors and take actions to implement innovation and learning in order to influence performance (Levitt and March, 1988; Miner, 1990).
Therefore, based on the theoretical links between creativity and performance, creativity and action orientation, and action orientation and performance, this study states the following hypotheses:
H1: Action orientation mediates the relationship between financial performance and creativity.
H1a: Action orientation mediates the relationship between revenue growth and creativity.
H1b: Action orientation mediates the relationship between profit growth and creativity.
H1c: Action orientation mediates the relationship between ROA growth and creativity.
Action Orientation. In order to develop a measure of action orientation, it will be necessary to establish initial content validity. To establish this, an exhaustive review of the current literature was completed. While O'Reilly et al. (1991) created a variable described as "outcome orientations" as a cultural attribute in the Organizational Culture Profile, the majority of researchers in the organizational behavior (OB) literature (c.f., Bagozzi et al, 1992; Jaramillo and Spector, 2004) examined action-orientation in terms of action orientation (readiness to take action) versus state orientation (propensity to stagnate).
Developing a list of common action orientation attributes is important for developing a consistent measure that can be operationalized along distinct, repeatable dimensions. Table 1 provides a summary of studies attempting to operationalize action orientation in different contexts.
A list of potential survey items was developed to measure action orientation by drawing on the concepts of previous research and changing the unit of analysis from the individual to the organization. After completing a two-study assessment of this construct, a five-item scale was validated. Participants were asked to assess their organizations on the following five dimensions: "Our company takes action rather than overanalyzing a situation," "Plans are implemented in a timely manner," "Our company is ready to take action," "Operational improvements is consistently emphasized," and "Formalized rules and policies do not stand in the way of progress." Table 2 lists the items used to develop an organizational-level action orientation measure.
Creativity. Numerous studies have measured creativity. Based on previous research, this study used a four-item scale similar to the Amabile et al. (1996) study. The first item, "Excessive attention to detail does not interfere with my ability to generate new ideas," was based on scales created by Amabile et al. (1996), George and Zhou (2007), and Perry-Smith (2006). The second item, "Employees are allowed to be creative in solving problems as they occur," was based on scales developed by Amabile et al. (1996), George and Zhou (2007), Gilson et al. (2005), Taggar (2002) and Perry-Smith (2006). The third item, "Our company emphasizes creativity," was based on scales developed by Amabile et al. (1996), Scott and Bruce (1994), and Zhou and George (2001). The final item, "Our company rewards creative thinking," was based on scales developed by Amabile et al. (1996), Perry-Smith (2006), Scott and Bruce (1994), and Zhou and George (2001). Table 3 lists specific items used to develop a measure for creativity at the organizational level.
To validate scales for both action orientation and creativity, first inter-rater reliability assessments were performed to address the consistency of the potential items (c.f. Carmines and Zeller, 1991). Specifically, a panel of seven experts (defined as academic researchers actively involved in studying organizational culture) was used to match potential individual survey items with the two dimensions. Values greater than 0.70 are typically acceptable for consistency estimates of inter-rater reliability (Crocker and Algina, 1986). Therefore, when an individual item received an inter-rater reliability score of less than 0.70, that item was dropped as a potential survey item. Once the content and agreement of items were established, an initial survey was developed. Respondents were asked to rate the degree to which each statement accurately described their organization (using a five-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).
Two separate studies were completed to develop reliable scales of action orientation and creativity. In the first study, respondents of a large Midwestern service organization completed the survey instrument to measure action orientation and creativity. Specifically, respondents were asked to agree/disagree using the five-point Likert scale in terms of how a particular statement related to their organization. A total of 474 respondents completed the survey.
Encouraging results were found on internal reliability and dimensionality from this initial survey. Internal reliability was measured using the Cronbach's Alpha score. The measures exceeded Nunnally's (1967) stringent threshold of 0.70. Specifically, action orientation had a score of 0.82 and creativity had a score of 0.80. Moreover, to establish discriminant validity between the sub-dimensional scales of this survey, Gaski and Nevin's (1985) procedure for establishing the independence of scales was utilized. They advocated examining the internal reliability estimates of measures and inter-correlations between measures to establish preliminary evidence of independence. If measures have higher internal reliability estimates than their correlations with other scales, evidence of independence is established.
In order to replicate the content validity of the measures from Study 1 and to assess the criterion-related validity of the measures, a second study was conducted. Data were collected from employees in a large, technology-based company using the same measures from Study 1. Mail surveys were used to collect survey data for culture and performance. Response rate was 45 percent, yielding 412 responses from 44 profit centers.
An aggregate profit growth and revenue growth measure was used over a three-year period to assess firm-level performance. Note that performance measures were collected for each of the 44 profit centers.
Consistent with Study 1, internal reliability of the action-orientation measure was assessed using Cronbach's Alpha, where action orientation had a score of 0.80 and creativity had a score of 0.82, indicating high reliability of the latent constructs. Moreover, the independence of the sub-dimensions of the measures was examined using Gaski and Nevin's (1985) recommended procedure. In order to assess criterion related validity, relationships between the developed constructs and performance were examined. Additionally, demographics of respondents were controlled for, as previous research has argued that employees' perceptions are impacted by their level in an organization (Kristof-Brown et al, 2005).
Growth rates for profitability and revenue were calculated using 2004-2006 data. Using hierarchical linear regression modeling, it was found that creativity and action orientation were significantly related to performance. Specifically, creativity and action orientation were both significant at the p < 0.01 level.
The strategy literature suffers from inconsistencies relating to levels of analysis in sampling to assess latent constructs. Many studies have attempted to measure dimensions such as creativity by surveying many individuals in very few companies (Calori and Sarnin, 1991). Conversely, other strategic management researchers have attempted to collect data from large cross-sectional samples, but only collect data from one person per company (Denison and Mishra, 1995). To overcome inconsistencies with previous research, a third study surveyed all employees (as opposed to one employee) in multiple organizations (as opposed to a single organization) in order to assess the mediating relationship of action orientation in the creativity-firm performance link. In the third study, 659 respondents were surveyed from 20 companies.
Three contextual control variables were identified based on previous research. Specifically, the control variables used were company size, company age, and industry performance. Organizational size can have an impact on whether or not creativity is encouraged (Woodman et al., 1993). It may be concluded that company size may obstruct perceptions in the organization about creativity-related behaviors (Chandler et al, 2000).
Organization age may also impact the relationship creativity creates on organization outcomes. As organization age, they establish specific ways of completing tasks that form routines, thereby decreasing the likelihood that creativity will appear as frequently (Ranger-Moore, 1997).
Industry classification may also impact creativity within an organization. Some industries are more likely to support creativity. This may require constant adaptation to realize competitive advantage (Cheney et al., 1991; Lengnick-Hall, 1992; Lyon and Ferrier, 2002). Additionally, industry-level performance is commonly used as a control variable when assessing firm-level performance across industries (Hart, 1995; Reinartz et al., 2004). For example, firms in high-growth industries should be expected to achieve higher growth rates than firms in low-growth industries. Therefore, industry growth rate is used as a control variable.
Hierarchical Regression Analysis
To test for the mediating effects of action orientation of the creativity-performance relationship, hierarchical linear OLS regression modeling was used to test the control model, the direct effects of creativity on performance, and the introduction of action orientation as a mediator. Note that before any regression results were interpreted, a complete set of diagnostic procedures was completed to ensure that this modeling technique was appropriate for these data. Specifically, data were checked for normality, patterns in residuals such as heteroscedasticity, and outliers (cf. Weinzimmerrfoi., 1994). Note that diagnostic procedures were also used when employing regression modeling in Study 2.
In order to test the hypotheses, a cross-sectional sample across 20 eastern and midwestern service, manufacturing, and technology companies was used. The sample included 13 service firms, four manufacturing firms, and four professional firms. Average company age was 59 years and the average size was 244 employees. A minimum of 30 responses per company was required in order to overcome issues regarding normality from previous research. Additionally, only companies with single locations were considered, as latent constructs such as creativity and action orientation may be influenced by subcultures endogenous to multiple locations. This yielded a sample of 659 responses. The methods framework provided by Baron and Kenny (1986) was utilized to test for mediated relationships. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and internal reliabilities are seen in Table 4. Again, measures for creativity and action orientation were highly reliable, with alpha scores of 0.83 and 0.82, respectively.
As seen in Table 5, action orientation was tested to determine if it mediated between creativity and revenue growth. According to the Barron and Kenny (1986) approach, a test to determine a significant relationship between action orientation and creativity was first performed. A significant relationship was found at the p < 0.01 level. Next, creativity and firm performance was tested to determine if there was a significant relationship between them. Creativity was significant at the p < 0.01 level. Finally, the extent to which action orientation mediated the link between creativity and revenue growth was tested by adding action orientation to the previous model. It was found that action orientation provided complete mediation, meaning that when action orientation was added to the final model, creativity was no longer significant and action orientation was significant at the p < 0.01 level, therefore providing support for Hla.
As seen in Table 6, action orientation was tested to determine if it mediated between creativity and profit growth. First, a test was performed to determine if there was a significant relationship between action orientation and creativity. A significant relationship was found at the p < 0.01 level. Next tested was the relationship between creativity and firm performance. Creativity was significant at the p < 0.01 level. Finally tested was the extent to which action orientation mediated the link between creativity and profit growth by adding action orientation to the previous model. Results showed complete mediation of action orientation, meaning that when action orientation was added to the final model, creativity was no longer significant and action orientation was significant at the p < 0.01 level, thereby providing support for Hlb.
As seen in Table 7, action orientation was tested to determine if it mediated between creativity and ROA growth. First, it had to be determined if there was a significant relationship between action orientation and creativity. A significant relationship at the p < 0.01 level was found. Next, it had to be determined if there was a significant relationship between creativity and firm performance. Creativity was significant at the p < 0.05 level. Finally tested was the extent to which action orientation mediated the link between creativity and revenue growth by adding action orientation to the previous model. Results demonstrated that action orientation provided complete mediation, meaning that when action orientation was added to the final model, creativity was no longer significant and action orientation was significant at the p < 0.01 level, thereby providing support for H1 c.
The present study sought to establish construct validity of an organizational level measure of action orientation and to show the mediated impact of action orientation between creativity and firm performance. In order to develop this construct validity, content validity was first established through an exhaustive review of the relevant literatures examining creativity and performance. Content validity was further strengthened through inter-rater agreement about the items included in the measure and in Study 1 by establishing the psychometric properties of the measures in terms of internal reliability and factor dimensionality. Study 2 replicated the internal reliability estimates and established tentative criterion-related validity. The developed organizational-level measure of action orientation predicted significant variability of performance at the firm level.
The present research contributes to the strategy literature that studies the link between creativity and performance, as it represents the first attempt at showing the mediating effects of action orientation on the link between creativity and performance. Additionally, the research represents the first full scale attempt to systematically validate a measure of action orientation through the establishment of content and criterion validity. Future research should also establish discriminant validity between the measure and other measures of creativity. It will be difficult to establish any discriminant validity between the measure and other firm-level measures of creativity because there are questions as to whether any previous measures of creativity are statistically valid. The fact that clear and significant statistical relationships were found between the measure established in this paper and financial performance is also notable in and of itself. The aforementioned construct validity issues with existing measures of creativity have resulted in equivocal criterion-related results of other studies. Future research, however, needs to expand the sample size, in terms of the number of organizations sampled and the number of employees sampled within each organization, in order to bolster the findings present in this research.
Future research may also want to investigate other contextual variables that may influence the relationship between creativity and performance by drawing on the innovation and intrapreneurship literatures. As mentioned previously, there is confusion between the creativity literature and the innovation literature. This is surprising, considering numerous researchers denote the eminence of creativity with respect to innovation (Amabile et al., 1996; Gilson et at., 2005; Scott and Bruce, 1994) and new product development (Bain et al., 2001). Several of the most heavily cited conceptual (Amabile, 1983; Woodman et al., 1993) and empirical (Scott and Bruce, i994) creativity studies receive little or no attention in the seminal intrapreneurship works by Carrier (1996) and Pinchot (1985, 1987). Similarly, these same innovation studies receive little or no attention in the creativity literature. Considering the formulation of creative ideas is a widely validated antecedent to the innovation process (Amabile et al., 1996; Elsbach and Hargadon, 2006; Perry-Smith, 2006), it is notable that the literatures appear to remain segregated. Future research may want to look at similarities between these two streams of research. Recognition of action orientation as a mediator moves the creativity literature closer to the innovation literature. A possible frame to integrate creativity and innovation may be the resource-process-value theory introduced by Christensen (2000). Finally, future research on creativity may benefit from investigation of different types of creativity. For example, de Bono's (i990) typology may provide structure. Specifically, he argued that lateral (radical) creativity may evolve over a longer period of time, compared to vertical (incremental) creativity, making short-term profitability difficult. Additionally, Sternberg (2006) suggested a typology of creativity, providing a review of creativity types ranging from the seminal work of Guilford (i950) and Torrance (1962) to the present.
Finally, managers may want to carefully assess the commitment an organization has to implementing creativity ideas when trying to forecast the impact of creativity on firmlevel performance. Additionally, given the valid scales provided in this study, managers have tools to assess their organizations not only in terms of creativity but also in terms of action orientation.
The present research has some limitations. First, cross-sectional research was conducted using a single method of data collection (e.g., surveys). Although the firm performance measures in the studies were objective measures of performance gleaned from company financial information, all other data were collected via self-report surveys. Thus, the possibility that some of the results occurred in part from common method bias cannot be excluded. Finally, there is a possibility of non-response bias. However, given that the response rate was 14%, the possibility of non-response bias is minimized (c.f. Fowler, 2002).
In conclusion, the present study sought to develop construct validity for action orientation and its effects as a mediator for the creativity-performance link. In doing so, an attempt was made to establish critical facets of validity that allow researchers to answer a basic question: Does the developed measure assess what it says it measures? A measure of action orientation was developed from three empirical studies. Preliminary content validity was established in Study 1. Study 2 established criterion-related validity. Finally, in Study 3, the ability of action orientation to mediate the creativity-performance link was empirically demonstrated. Results encourage future refinement of the developed measure. Also, the findings suggest that further development of action orientation as a mediating variable can be useful in other performance research.
Amabile, T. 1997. "Motivating Creativity in Organizations: On Doing What You Love and Loving What You Do." California Management Review 40(1): 39-58.
--. 1988. "A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations." Chapter in Research in Organizational Behavior. Eds. B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings.
--. 1983. "The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 357-377. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Vol. 10: 123-167.
-- and R. Conti. 1999. "Changes in the Work Environment for Creativity during Downsizing." Academy of Management Journal 42(6): 630-640.
--, R. Conti, H. Coon, J. Lazenby, and M. Herron. 1996. "Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity." Academy of Management Journal 39(5): 1154-1184.
Bagozzi, R. P., H. Baumgartner, and Y. Yi. 1992. "State versus Action Orientation and the Theory of Reasoned Action: An Application to Coupon Usage." Journal of Consumer Research 18: 505-517.
Bain, P., L. Mann, and A. Pirola-Merlo. 2001. "The Innovation Imperative: The Relationships between Team Climate, Innovation, and Performance in Research and Development Teams. Small Group Research 32(1): 55-73.
Baliga, B., R. Mover, and R. Rao. 1996. "CEO Duality and Firm Performance: What's the Fuss?" Strategic Management Journal 17(1): 41-53.
Barney, J. 1986. "Organizational Culture: Can it be a Source of Competitive Advantage?" Academy of Management Review f 1(3): 656-665.
Baron, R. and D. Kenny. 1986. "The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:1173-1182.
Burkhardt. M. and D. Brass. 1990. "Changing Patterns or Patterns of Change: The Effects of a Change in Technology on Social Network Structure and Power." Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 104-127.
Calori, R. and P. Sarnin. 1991. "Corporate Culture and Economic Performance: A French Study." Organization Studies 12: 49-74.
Carmines, E. G. and R. Zeller. 1991. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Newbury Park:
Carrier, C. 1996. "Intrapreneurship in Small Businesses: An Exploratory Study." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Fall: 5-20
Chandler, G. and S. Hanks. 1993. "Measuring the Performance of Emerging Businesses: A Validation Study." Journal of Business Venturing 8: 391-408.
--, C. Keller, and D. Lyon. 2000. "Unraveling the Determinants and Consequences of an Innovation-Supportive Organizational Culture." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Fall: 59-76.
Cheney, P. K., T. Devinney, and R. Winer. 1991. "The Impact of New Product Introductions on the Market Value of Firms. "Journal of Business 64(4): 573-610.
Christensen, C. 2000. The Innovator's Dilemma. New York: Harpers Business.
Crocker, L. and J. Algina. 1986. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
de Bono, E. 1990. Lateral Thinking. New York: Harper and Row.
Denison, D. R. and A. Mishra. 1995. "Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and Effectiveness." Organization Science 6: 204-223.
Deshpande, R., J. Farley, and F. Webster, Jr. 1993. "Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness. "Journal of Marketing 57(1): 23-27.
Diefendorff, J. M. 2004. "Examination of the Roles of Action-state Orientation and Goal Orientation in the Goal-setting and Performance Process." Human Performance 17: 375-395.
--, R. Hall, R. Lord, and M. Strean. 2000. "Action-state Orientation: Construct Validity of a Revised Measure and its Relationship to Work-related Variables. "Journal of Applied Psychology 85: 250-263.
Dobni, C. B. and G. Luffman, 2000. "Implementing Marketing Strategy through a Market Orientation." Journal of Marketing Management 16: 895-916.
Elsbach, K. and A. Hargadon. 2006. "Enhancing Creativity Through 'Mindless' Work: A Framework of Workday Design." Organization Science 17(4): 470-483.
Fowler, F.J. 2002. Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gaski, J. F. and J. Nevin. 1985. "The Differential Effects of Exercised and Unexercised Power Sources in a Marketing Channel. "Journal of Marketing Research 22: 130-142.
George, J. and J. Zhou. 2007. "Dual Tuning in a Supportive Context: Joint Contributions of Positive Mood, Negative Mood, and Supervisory Behaviors to Employee Creativity." Academy of Management Journal 50(3): 605-622.
Geroski, P. 2000. " The Growth of Firms in Theory and in Practice." Chapter in Competence, Governance, and Entrepreneurship: Advances in Economic Strategy Research. Eds. N. Foss and V. Mahnke. New York, NY: Oxford Press, pp. 168.
Gilson, L., C. Shalley, and T. Ruddy. 2005. "Creativity and Standardization: Complementary or Conflicting Drivers of Team Effectiveness?" Academy of Management Journal 48(3): 521-531.
Goosen, C. J., T. De Coning, and E. Srnit. 2002. "Corporate Entrepreneurship and Financial Performance: The Role of Management." South African Journal of Business Management 33(4): 21-27.
Govindarajan, V. 1988. "A Contingency Approach to Strategy Implementation at the Business-Unit Level: Integrating Administrative Mechanisms with Strategy." Academy of Management Journal 31(4): 828-853.
Griliches, Z. 1990. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey." Journal of Economic Literature 28: 1661-1707.
Guilford, J. P. 1950. "Creativity." American Psychologist .5: 444-454.
Hargadon, A. and B. Bechky. 2006. "When Collections of Creatives Become Creative Collectives: A Field Study of Problem Solving at Work." Organization Science 17 (4): 484-500.
Harper, S. M. and S. Becker. 2004. "On the Leading Edge of Innovation: A Comparative Study of Innovation Practices." Southern Business Review 29 (2): 1-15.
Hart, S. 1995. "A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm." Academy of Management Review 20: 986-1014.
Hennessey, B. and T. Aniabile. 2010. "Creativity." Annual Review of Psychology 61: 569598.
Hill, C, M. Hitt, and R. Hoskisson. 1992. "Cooperative vs. Competitive Structures in Diversified Firms." Organization Science 3: 501-521.
IBM. 2010. 2010 IBM Global CEO Study. New York: IBM Corporation.
Jaffe, A., M. Fogarty, and B. Banks. 1998. "Evidence from Patents and Patent Citations on the Impact of NASA and Other Federal Labs on Commercial Innovation." The Journal of Industrial Economics Vol. XLVI (2): 183-205.
Jaramillo, F. and P. E. Spector. 2004. "The Effect of Action Orientation on the Academic Performance of Undergraduate Marketing Majors." Journal of Marketing Education 26: 250-260
Johnston, M., K. Reed, K. Lawrence, and M. Onken. 2007. "The Link between Communication and Financial Performance in Simulated Organizational Teams." Journal of Managerial Issues 19 (4): 536-555.
Katz, R. and T. Allen. 1985. "Project Performance and the Locus of Influence in the R&D Matrix." Academy of Management Journal 28: 87-87.
Klein, K. and J. Sorra. 1996. "The Challenge of Innovation Implementation." Academy of Management Review 21(4): 1055-1080.
Koole, S. and N. Jostman. 2004. "Getting a Grip on your Feelings: Effects of Action Orientation and External Demands on Intuitive Affect Regulation." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87: 974-990.
Kristof-Brown, A., R. Zimmerman, and E. Johnson. 2005. "Consequences of Individuals' Fit at Work: A Meta-Analysis of Person-Job, Person-Organization, Person-Group, and Person-Supervisor Fit." Personnel Psychology 58: 281-342.
Kuhl, J. 2000. "A Functional-design Approach to Motivation and Volition: The Dynamics of Personality Systems Interactions." Chapter in Self regulation: Directions and Challenges for Future Research. Eds. M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner. New York: Academic Press, pp. 111-169.
--. 1994a. "The Theory of Action and State Orientation." Chapter in Volition and Personality: Action versus State Orientation. Eds. J. Kuhl and J. Beckmann. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe and Huber. pp. 9-46.
--. 1994b. "Action versus State Orientation: Psychometric Properties of the Action Control Scale (ACS-90)." Chapter in Volition and Personality: Action versus State Orientation. Eds. J. Kuhl and J. Beckmann. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe and Huber. pp. 47-59.
--. 1992. "A Theory of Self-regulation: Action versus State Orientation, Self-Discrimination, and Some Applications." Applied Psychology: An International Review 41: 97-129.
--. 1985. "Volitional Mediators of Cognition-behavior Consistency: Self-regulatory Processes and Action Versus State Orientation." Chapter in Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Eds. J. Kuhl and J Beckmann. New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. 101-128.
--. 1984. "Volitional Aspects of Achievement Motivation and Learned Helplessness: Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Action Control." Chapter in Progress in Experimental Personality Research. Eds. B. Maher and W. Maher. Orlando: Academic Press, pp. 101-171.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A. 1992. "Innovation and Competitive Advantage: What We Know and What We Need to I .cam." Journal of Management 18(2): 399-429.
Levitt, B. and J. G. March. 1988. "Organizational Learning." Annual Review of Sociology 14: 319-340.
Lyon, D. W. and W. J. Ferrier. 2002. "Enhancing Performance with Product-Market Innovation: The Influence Of The Top Management Team." Journal of Managerial Issues 14: 452-470.
MacKinnon, D., A. Fairchild and M. Fritz. 2007. "Mediation Analysis." Annual Review of Psychology 58: 593-615.
Miner, A. S. 1990. "Structural Evolution through Idiosyncratic Jobs: The Potential for Unplanned Learning." Organization Science 1: 195-210.
Morgan, R. E. and C. A. Strong. 2003. "Business Performance and Dimensions of Strategic Orientation. "Journal of Business Research 56: 163-176.
Neuman, G. A. and J. Wright. 1999. "Team Effectiveness: Beyond Skills and Cognitive Ability." Journal of Applied Psychology 84: 376-389.
Nunnally, J. 1967. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O'Reilly, C. A., Ill, J. Chapman, and D. Caldwell. 1991. "People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit." Academy of Management Journal 34: 487-516.
Perry-Smith, J. 2006. "Social yet Creative: The Role of Social Relationships in Facilitating Individual Creativity." Academy of Management Journal 49(1): 85-101.
Pinchot, G. 1987. "Innovation Through Intrapreneuring." Research Management 13(2): 14-19.
--. 1985. Intrapreneuring. New York: Harper and Row.
Porter, M. 1985. "Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance." New York: The Free Press.
Ranger-Moore, J. 1997. "Bigger May Be Better, But Is Older Wiser? Organizational Age and Size in the New York Insurance Industry." American Sociological Review 62: 903-920.
Rashid, Z. A., M. Sambasivan, and A. Rahman. 2004. "The Influence of Organizational Culture on Attitudes Toward Organizational Change." Leadership and Organization Development Journal 25: 161-179.
Reinartz, W, M. Krafft, and W. Hoyer. 2004. "The Customer Relationship Management Process: Its Measurement and Impact on Performance." Journal of Marketing Research 41(3): 293-305.
Scott, S. and R. Bruce. 1994. "Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace." Academy of Management Journal 37(3): 580607.
Singh, J. 1986. "Performance, Slack, and Risk Taking in Organizational Decision Making." Academy of Management Journal 29: 562-585.
Slater, F. and J. Narver. 1994. "Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market Orientation-Performance Relationship?" Journal of Marketing 58: 46-65.
Stanley, D.J., J. Meyer, and L. Topolnytsky. 2005. "Employee Cynicism and Resistance to Organizational Change. "Journal of Business and Psychology 19(4): 429-459.
Sternberg, R.J. 2006. "The Nature of Creativity." Creativity Research Journal 18(1): 8798.
Taggar, S. 2002. "Individual Creativity and Group Ability to Utilize Individual Creative Resources: A Multilevel Model." Academy of Management Journal 45(2): 315-330.
Torrance, E. P. 1962. Guiding Creative Talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Utsch, A., A. Rauch, R. Rothfuss, and M. Frese. 1999. "Who Becomes a Small Scale Entrepreneur in a Post-Socialist Environment: On the Differences between Entrepreneurs and Managers in East Germany. "Journal of Small Business Management 37: 31-24.
Vera, D. and M. Crossan. 2005. "Improvisation and Innovative Performance in Teams." Organization Science 16(3): 203-224.
Von Nordenflycht, A. 2007. "Is Public Ownership Bad for Professional Service Firms? Ad Agency Ownership, Performance, and Creativity." Academy of Management Journal 50 (2): 429-445.
Weinzimmer, L. G., M. A. Mone, and L. C. Alwan. 1994. "An Examination of Perceptions and Usage of Regression Diagnostics in Organization Studies." Journal of Management 20: 179-192.
Woodman, R., J. Sawyer, and R. Griffin. 1993. "Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity." Academy of Management Review 18: 293-321.
Zahra, S. A. 1995. "Corporate Entrepreneurship and Financial Performance: The Case of Management Leveraged Buyouts." Journal of Business Venturing 10: 225-247.
--. 1993. "Environment, Corporate Entrepreneurship and Financial Performance: A Taxonomic Approach. "Journal of Business Venturing 8(4): 319-340.
Zhou, J. and J. George. 2001. "When Job Dissatisfaction Leads to Creativity: Encouraging the Expression of Voice." Academy of Management Journal 44: 682-696.
Laurence G. Weinzimmer (1)
Professor of Strategic Management
Eric J. Michel
Assistant Professor of Management
Jennifer L. Franczak
Southern Illinois University
Table 1 umpincal studies Attempting to Measure Action Orientation Author Conceptualization Bagozzi et al. (1992) High capacity for enactment of action-related mental structures Diefendorff et al. (2000) Persons who are more action oriented are characterized by-enhanced performance efficiency (Kuhl, 1994b) and the ability to complete tasks after minor failures or setbacks Koole and Jostman (2004) Action orientation is defined as a metastatic mode of control, in which the enactment of change-oriented intentions is facilitated (Kuhl, 1984) Kuhl (2000) Differentiated between demand-related action orientation (AOD) and threat-related action orientation (ACT) (Kuhl, 2000). Kuhl (1994a, b) Content validity of development of action-control scale (ACS) Morgan and Strong (2003) Proactiveness was (1) founded by action orientation literature and (2) describes the initiative adopted by firms to continuously search for burgeoning opportunities (Slater and Narver, 1994) Utsch etal. (1999) Proactiveness refers to a high degree of initiative as seen in many entrepreneurs. Action orientation used to express ideas of proactiveness in entrepreneurs Author Measurement Bagozzi et al. (1992) Used Kuhl's (1985) Decision- related State-versus Action- Orientation Scale Diefendorff et al. (2000) Kuhl's (1994a) measure of action- state orientation, the Action Control Scale (ACS). Modified subscales to include: (a) self- regulatory and focus variables; (b) job attitudes and performance Koole and Jostman (2004) Measured action orientation using the Action Control Scale (ACS-90). Administered two 12-item subscales of the ACS-90, which measured AOD (Demand related action orientation) and AOT (Threat related action orientation) Kuhl (2000) Created scale using Kuhl's (1985) Decision-related State-versus Action-Orientation Scale Kuhl (1994a, b) Original subscale creation of ACS scale included 12 dichotomous items Morgan and Strong (2003) Used Proactiveness measure to measure activities of action orientation. Action orientation facilitated when persons plan to implement actions that follow from a decision as seen in the case of many entrepreneurs Utsch etal. (1999) To measure action orientation after failure-the extent to which one acts immediately without hesitation developed from Kuhl (1992). Table 2 Items for Action Orientation Construct Item from Action Orientation Scale Source Material Our company takes O'Reilly et al. (1991) action rather than over- analyzing a situation Plans are implemented in Kuhl (1994a), Diefendorff a timely manner et al. (2000), Jaramillo and Spector (2004). Our company is action- O'Reilly et al. (1991) oriented Operational Kuhl (1994a), Diefendorff improvement is et al. (2000), Jaramillo and consistently emphasized Spector (2004). Formalized rules and O'Reilly el al. (1991) policies do not stand in the way of progress Item from Action Orientation Scale Original Item Our company takes "I have a high degree of action rather than over- decisiveness." analyzing a situation Plans are implemented in "When f have a lot of a timely manner important things to do and they must all be done soon ... I find it easy to stick to the plan." Our company is action- "I am action oriented." oriented Operational "Our company continually improvement is looks for new ways to consistently emphasized improve operations." Formalized rules and "I am not constrained by policies do not stand in many formalized rules." the way of progress Table 3 Items for Creativity Construct Item from Creativity Source Material Original Item Scale Excessive attention Amabile et al. (1996), "There is an over- to detail does not George and Zhou emphasis on details interfere with my (2007), Perry-Smith in this ability to generate (2006). organization." new ideas Employees are allowed Amabile et al (1996), "People are allowed to be creative in George and Zhou to solve problems solving problems as (2007); Gilson et al. creatively in this they occur (2005), Tagger organization." (2002), Perry-Smith (2006). Our company Amabile et al. "Creativity is emphasizes creativity (1996), Scott and encouraged at our Bruce (1994), Zhou company." and George (2001). Our company rewards Amabile et al. "The reward system at creative thinking (1996), Perry-Smith our company (2006); Scott and encourages Bruce (1994); Zhou innovation." and George (2001) Table 4 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Internal Reliabilities for Study 3 Variable Mean SD 1 2 1. Company Age 59.12 31.01 -- 2. Company Size 254.78 77.47 0.17 ** -- 3. Industry' Growth 4.61 1.33 0.11 * -0.15 ** 4. Creativity 13.98 3.10 -0.07 * -0.03 5. Action Orientation 16.65 3.81 -0.05 0.02 6. Revenue Growth 0.36 0.46 -0.11 ** -0.19 ** 7. Profit Growth 2.01 2.01 0.30 ** -0.41 ** 8. ROA Growth 0.12 0.08 0.41 ** 0.43 ** Variable 3 4 5 6 1. Company Age 2. Company Size 3. Industry' Growth -- 4. Creativity 0.03 0.83 5. Action Orientation 0.08 0.48 ** 0.82 6. Revenue Growth -0.11 ** 0.30 ** 0.11 * -- 7. Profit Growth -0.16 ** 0.29 ** 0.19 ** 0.61 ** 8. ROA Growth 0.06 0.11 * 0.19 ** 0.25 ** Variable 7 1. Company Age 2. Company Size 3. Industry' Growth 4. Creativity 5. Action Orientation 6. Revenue Growth 7. Profit Growth -- 8. ROA Growth 0.53 ** Notes: N = 659 * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. Table 5 Mediated Regressions of Action Orientation with Creativity and Profit Growth Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Control Variables Company Age 0.14 0.33 0.32 Company Size -0.17 ** -0.19 ** -0.19 * Industry Growth 0.17 ** 0.18 ** 0.17 ** Independent Variable Creativity 0.17 ** -0.07 Mediator Action Orientation 0.27 ** F 37.48 ** 50.78 ** 47.78 ** [R.sup.2] 0.14 ** 0.23 ** 0.27 ** Change [R.sup.2] 0.09 ** 0.04 ** Notes: N = 659 * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. Table 6 Mediated Regressions of Action Orientation with Creativity and Revenue Growth Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Control Variables Company Age -0.15 ** -0.10 * -0.11 * Company Size -0.17 ** -0.19 ** -0.19 ** Industry Growth 0.13 ** 0.14 ** 0.15 ** Independent Variable Creativity 0.15 ** 0.00 Mediator Action Orientation 0.22 ** F 12.53 ** 13.94 ** 14.12 ** [R.sup.2] 0.05 ** 0.08 ** 0.11 ** Change [R.sup.2] 0.03 ** 0.03 ** Notes: N = 659 * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. Table 7 Mediated Regressions of Action Orientation with Creativity and ROA Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Control Variables Company Age 0.44 ** 0.45 ** 0.46 ** Company Size 0.16 ** 0.12 * 0.12 * Industry Growth -0.08 -0.08 -0.08 Independent Variable Creativity 0.11 * -0.03 Mediator 0.21 ** Action Orientation F 58.96 ** 40.12 ** 36.42 ** [R.sup.2] 0.19 * 0.22 ** 0.25 ** Change [R.sup.2] 0.03 ** 0.03 ** Notes: N = 669 * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.…