Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources (2019) 57, 127–149 doi:10.1111/1744-7941.

12186

Fostering workplace creativity: examining the

roles of job design and organizational context
Sangok Yoo University of Minnesota, USA
Soebin Jang X University of Minnesota, USA
Yedam Ho University of Minnesota, USA
Jaekyo Seo University of Minnesota, USA
Min Hee Yoo Korea University, South Korea

This study investigates the actor–context interaction effects of job characteristics and organizational
context on individual creativity in the South Korean context. Specifically, we examined the relation-
ship among three job characteristics (i.e. skill variety, autonomy and feedback), three organizational
context factors (i.e. organizational climate, resources and extrinsic rewards), and individual creativ-
ity. Our findings indicated that all job characteristics positively affected individual creativity. Only
extrinsic rewards had a significant moderating effect on the job characteristics and individual cre-
ativity relationship; extrinsic rewards negatively moderated the relationship between skill variety
and individual creativity, while it positively affected the relationship between autonomy and indi-
vidual creativity. Our study extends and contributes to the actor–context interactionist view in cre-
ativity scholarship and provides several important implications for creativity research and practice.
Keywords: creativity, extrinsic rewards, job characteristics, organizational context, South Korea

Key points
1 Skill variety, autonomy, and feedback had a positive direct effect on individual
creativity.
2 Organizational climate, resource, and extrinsic rewards had a positive direct effect
on individual creativity.
3 Only extrinsic rewards had a significant moderating effect on individual creativity.
4 Moderating effects of extrinsic rewards were mixed – they were positive for auton-
omy and negative for skill variety, in relation to individual creativity.

The importance of creativity and innovation for contemporary organizations is ever

increasing. This need has been underscored by rapid developments in technology and
increased global competition that require organizations to continuously innovate and

*Correspondence: Soebin Jang, University of Minnesota, 205 Burton Hall 178 Pillsbury Drive
SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA; e-mail: jangx242@umn.edu
Accepted for publication 6 May 2018.
© 2018 Australian HR Institute
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 57

grow (Chen and Kaufmann 2008; Zhou and Hoever 2014). Industry reports point to the
increasing need for innovation-driven change and practices (De Jong, Marston, and Roth
2015), and global survey results indicate innovation as the top priority for business
growth, while creativity is regarded as an essential characteristic for future employees
(Deloitte 2013).
A growing body of research has highlighted numerous antecedents that influence
creativity (e.g. He, Gu, and Liu 2017; Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham 2004; Zhou and
Hoever 2014), and human resource (HR) scholars have also explored individual
attributes and work contexts that foster creativity in the workplace, including
recruitment, rewards, feedback and learning culture (e.g. Joo, McLean, and Yang
2013; Sue-Chan and Hempel 2016). Nonetheless, creativity researchers have raised
concerns that most studies have been limited to either an actor- or context-centered
approach (Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham 2004; Zhou and Hoever 2014). Zhou and
Hoever (2014), in a recent review of the creativity literature, noted that overly
focusing on single aspects or dimensions may limit our view and understanding of
creativity. In this respect, scholars have increasing called for the need to focus on
interactive effects of multiple actor- and context-related factors in the workplace
(Shalley, Gilson, and Blum 2009; Zhou and Hoever 2014).
The purpose of this study is to address this gap in the literature and investigate the
effects of multiple job characteristics and organizational context factors on individual cre-
ativity in the workplace. Hence, the research questions for this study were:

Research question 1: What are the effects of job characteristics on individual creativity?

Research question 2: What are the moderating effects of organizational context on the job
characteristic–individual creativity relationship?

In a survey of 257 employees in South Korea, we examined the effects of job characteris-
tics, including skill variety, autonomy and feedback on individual creativity. We also
tested the moderating effects of organizational context, including organizational climate,
resources and rewards on the direct relationships.
The paper is structured as follows. We first briefly review the creativity literature and high-
light different conceptualizations of workplace creativity, and the importance of job character-
istics and organizational context in fostering workplace creativity. Then, we draw on previous
theoretical work and empirical studies to develop our hypotheses. In the next subsections, we
describe our methodology and study findings. We provide several implications for creativity
scholarship and practice, along with recommendations for future research.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Creativity
Creativity is focused on the actor who produces new and useful outcomes, and is under-
stood at individual, group, and organizational levels (James and Drown 2012). There is a

128 © 2018 Australian HR Institute

 Sangok Yoo et al.

long history of debate on conceptualizing creativity (Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow 2004),
generally defined in terms of products, practices, processes and/or services that are novel
and useful to the organization (Amabile 1988; Franken 2001; Koednok and Sungsanit
2018). Early definitions of creativity focused on the process, whereas more contemporary
views focused on distinctive types of outcomes and characteristics associated to a creative
product (Amabile 1983; Csikszentmihalyi 1988; Grosser, Venkataramani, and Labianca
2017). In this regard, scholars have taken either a cognitive-abilities approach or a charac-
teristics approach to understanding creativity (Amabile 1983; Li, Li, and Chen 2018). The
former views creativity as recognized through specific product features or thought pro-
cesses, while the latter suggests that creativity is understood through the quality of reac-
tion that a product produces from an observer (Amabile 1983; Csikszentmihalyi 1988).
Still others maintained that creativity cannot be defined due to its indefinite and incom-
prehensible nature (e.g. Khatami 2008). Taken together, creativity often broadly reflects
notions such as creative thinking, problem-solving, imagination, and innovation. These
definitions point to the importance of newness or originality, in terms of generating novel,
useful, and goal-oriented products or ideas (Glaveanu 2011). Table 1 lists some common
definitions of creativity in the literature.
In this study, we view creativity as the creation of new and useful ideas by demonstrat-
ing creative thinking, based on expert knowledge in performing one’s job (Csikszentmiha-
lyi 1988). Further, we focus on individual creativity, as prior research suggests that 1)
individual creativity is closely related to team and/or organizational creativity (Anderson,
Potocnik, and Zhou 2014); and 2) employees play an essential role as focal agents in per-
forming creatively (Oldham and Cummings 1996; Thatcher and Brown 2010).

Table 1 Selected definitions of creativity

Author(s) Definition(s) of creativity

Newell, Shaw, Creative activity appears simply to be a special class of

and Simon (1962) problem-solving activity characterized by novelty, unconventionality,
persistence, and difficulty in problem formulation
Csikszentmihalyi (1988) Creativity is any act, idea, or product that changes an existing
domain, or that transforms an existing domain into a new one.
What counts is whether the novelty he or she produces is accepted
for inclusion in the domain
Franken (2001) Creativity is defined as the tendency to generate or recognize ideas,
alternatives, or possibilities that may be useful in solving problems,
communicating with others, and entertaining others and us
Sternberg, Kaufman, Creativity is the ability to create new, qualitatively appropriate products
and Pretz (2002)
Weisberg (2006) Creativity refers both to the capacity to produce novel works and
to the activity of generating novel products

© 2018 Australian HR Institute 129

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 57

Job characteristics
There has been increased interest in examining the relationship between job characteristics
and individual creativity in the workplace (James and Drown 2012; Shalley, Zhou, and
Oldham 2004), often drawing on the Job Characteristics Model (JCM). JCM was origin-
ally developed to elucidate the five job dimensions that lead to employee motivation,
including skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback (Hackman
and Oldham 1975; Oldham and Cummings 1996). The model highlights the importance
of job characteristics and their underlying mechanisms, through which employees are
motivated at work. Hackman and Oldham (1975) contended that to obtain positive indi-
vidual and work outcomes, employees need to reach certain critical psychological states,
including experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility for work outcomes, and
knowledge of results in work activities.
Of the five job characteristics, our study focused on skill variety, autonomy, and feed-
back, as prior research has given particular attention to the three dimensions in the con-
text of workplace creativity (e.g. Amabile 1983; Coelho and Augusto 2010; Liu, Chen, and
Yao 2011). To illustrate, research indicates that job skills are positively related to individ-
ual creativity (e.g. Chen, Shih, and Yeh 2011); for example, the variety of skills increased
intrinsic job interest and in turn contributed to individual creativity (Oldham and Cum-
mings 1996). Studies also demonstrated that individuals given high levels of autonomy in
their work tasks were more likely to be creative (Chang, Huang, and Choi 2012). Others
reported that supervisory feedback increased creative performance by fostering employee
intrinsic motivation (Beugelsdijk 2008).

Organizational context
Prior research also underscores the importance of organizational context and its influence
on individual creativity (Amabile 1988; Anderson, Potocnik, and Zhou 2014; Woodman,
Sawyer, and Griffin 1993). One of the earliest attempts to integrate organizational context
in creativity was Amabile’s (1988) model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations.
This model highlights the importance of organizational context in increasing individual
motivation towards creativity. In particular, the model delineates the importance of orga-
nizational context factors, such as organizational climate, evaluation systems and rewards,
management practices, and resources as critical predictors of individual creativity. In a
similar vein, Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993) pointed to the importance of consid-
ering interactions among individual, group, and organizational factors. Under this view,
individual factors such as cognitive abilities, knowledge, and intrinsic motivation are sig-
nificant in understanding creativity; however, one needs to take into account various situ-
ational and contextual influences to fully understand creative work behaviors.
Taking an actor–context interactionist approach, this study focused on the moderat-
ing effects of organizational climate, resources, and extrinsic rewards on the job character-
istics – individual creativity relationship (Shalley, Gilson, and Blum 2009; Zhou and
Hoever 2014). Organizational climate has gained much attention as a key factor in foster-
ing workplace creativity (Lin and Liu 2012; Rasulzada and Dackert 2009); an
130 © 2018 Australian HR Institute
 Sangok Yoo et al.

organizational climate in support of creativity has been closely linked to employees’ per-
ceptions of job support and autonomy in their work environment (Zhou and Hoever
2014). Providing sufficient resources in the organization may also enhance creative per-
formance (Ananthram and Nankervis 2013; Shalley, Gilson, and Blum 2009). Prior
research indicates that tangible and intangible resources in organizations (i.e. labor, time,
information, funds, etc.) contribute to increased creativity and innovation (Ananthram
and Nankervis 2013). Furthermore, research suggests that rewards are closely linked to
individual creativity and are contingent on numerous individual and organizational
factors (Byron and Khazanchi 2012). For example, Malik, Butt, and Choi (2015) demon-
strated the positive effects of extrinsic rewards and creative self-efficacy on employee
creative performance; however, extrinsic rewards themselves had no significant direct
effect on creative performance.

Job characteristics and individual creativity

Skill variety in one’s job describes ‘the extent to which a job requires a variety of different
activities in carrying out the work, which involve the use of a number of different skills
and talents of the employee’ (Hackman and Oldham 1975; 161). Employees who perceive
that their jobs require a variety of skills are likely to learn work-related skills (Hackman
and Oldham 1975). Domain- and creativity-relevant skills have been highlighted as
important determinants of individual creativity (Amabile 1983; Ligon et al. 2012; Shalley,
Zhou, and Oldham 2004), and previous research lends support in this respect (e.g. Chen,
Shih, and Yeh 2011; Ohly, Sonnentag, and Pluntke 2006). For example, Chen, Shih, and
Yeh (2011), with a sample of 245 public servants in Taiwan, found that employees who
displayed high levels of skill variety were viewed as more creative at work. In another
study, Ligon et al. (2012) reported that employees who learned diverse skills along with
appropriate feedback were seen to more actively participate in creative work processes.
Thus, we predicted that skill variety will lead to increased individual creativity.
Hypothesis 1: Skill variety will be positively related to individual creativity.

Autonomy in one’s work is argued to be an important predictor for individual creativity

(Amabile et al. 1996; Chang, Huang, and Choi 2012; Liu, Chen, and Yao 2011). According
to Hackman and Oldham (1975), autonomy refers to ‘the degree to which the job pro-
vides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the employee scheduling the
work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out’ (162). As such,
autonomy is closely related to one’s perception of self-competence and self-determina-
tion, and lack of autonomy may negatively affect employee motivation and creativity
(Zhou 1998). Amabile et al. (1996) also noted that external control and pressure in the
work environment are likely to prevent intrinsic motivation of employees, which in turn
may negatively affect individual creativity. In a recent study, He, Gu, and Liu (2017)
showed that increasing employees’ autonomy at work, through the implementation of
department high-performance work systems, positively affected their creative perform-
ance. Autonomy is therefore seen to contribute to individual creativity, through providing
© 2018 Australian HR Institute 131
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 57

better choices at work, allowing free exploration of ideas, and promoting intrinsic motiva-
tion (Oldham and Cummings 1996; Pulfrey, Darnon, and Butera 2013). Thus, we
expected that employees who perceive autonomy in their jobs will perform more
creatively.
Hypothesis 2: Autonomy will be positively related to individual creativity.

Feedback is perceived as a critical source for increased employee motivation and job per-
formance (Thatcher and Brown 2010); it refers to ‘the degree to which carrying out the
work activities required by the job results in the employee obtaining direct and clear infor-
mation about the effectiveness of his or her performance’ (Hackman and Oldham 1975;
161). Prior research highlights the performance- and development-related feedback as an
important source in obtaining task-related information and increasing individual creativ-
ity (Oldham and Cummings 1996; Zhou 1998). George and Zhou (2002) found that
employees who were provided with feedback displayed increased creativity in performing
their tasks. Conversely, in the absence of feedback, employees were seen to not able to
judge the quality of their performance and missed important opportunities to improve in
their work (Coelho and Augusto 2010). Therefore, we expected that providing feedback
will positively affect individual creativity.
Hypothesis 3: Feedback will be positively related to individual creativity.

Moderating role of organizational context

Research indicates that a creative climate is closely linked to employees’ creativity and
innovation, as it allows employees to feel comfortable in exchanging information, trying
new things, and maintaining positive relationships with colleagues (Lin and Liu 2012;
Rasulzada and Dackert 2009). In other words, creative climates support employees to feel
psychologically safe, in terms of taking risks and participating in innovative tasks. Var-
nali’s (2015) study of HR climate further identified openness and dynamism as critical in
stimulating and valuing workplace creativity. Xerri (2013) also found that perceived organiza-
tional support positively affected innovative behaviors among nursing employees.
Such aspects of an organizational climate supportive of creativity may provide
employees with more opportunities to use their work skills in a flexible manner (Lin and
Liu 2012; Zhou and George 2001). A creative climate under which external control and
work pressure is low, employees may perceive higher autonomy in their work and in turn
perform better on creative tasks (Amabile et al. 1996; Liu, Chen, and Yao 2011). Further,
research suggests that supervisory feedback may also lead to increased intrinsic motivation
and development under a creative climate (Amabile, Goldfarb, and Brackfield 1990;
Skerlavaj, Cerne,
 and Dysvik 2014; Zhou and George 2001). Taking these aspects together,
we hypothesized that an organizational climate supportive of creativity will positively
moderate the effects of skill variety, autonomy, and feedback on individual creativity. For-
mally stated:

132 © 2018 Australian HR Institute

 Sangok Yoo et al.

Hypothesis 4: Organizational climate will moderate the relationship between the three job
characteristics and individual creativity, such that when perceived climate is high, (a) skill
variety will be more strongly related to individual creativity; (b) autonomy will be more
strongly related to individual creativity; and (c) feedback will be more strongly related to indi-
vidual creativity.

Providing sufficient resources is viewed to support employees’ creative performance and

innovative behaviors (Ananthram and Nankervis 2013). The extant literature highlights
undermining aspects or strains due to lack of resources, often referring to time pressure
(Baer and Oldham 2006), heightened competition (Amabile 1996), and interpersonal con-
flict (Yong, Sauer, and Mannix 2014). For example, research indicates that, when given
limited time to work, individuals tend to be less likely to engage in creative tasks and inter-
pret issues from different viewpoints. Baer and Oldham (2006) found a negative relation-
ship between time pressure and creativity. Their study revealed an inverted-U shape
relationship, when support for both creativity and openness to experience were high. Lack
of time therefore may limit opportunities to examine a situation or task more deeply and
in turn undermine employees’ creative performance (Andrews and Smith 1996).
In a similar vein, heightened competition may inhibit employees’ engagement in cre-
ative tasks, as individuals may invest their cognitive abilities and energy resources in rela-
tively less important activities, such as observing competitors and/or trying to win
competitions (Reiter-Palmon, Wigert, and Vreede 2012). Others have found that interper-
sonal relationship conflicts among individuals or members of a group may undermine
creativity, through limited access to valuable information, lack of trust, and disengage-
ment in important tasks (e.g. Yong, Sauer, and Mannix 2014). We therefore expected that
providing sufficient resources in support of creativity will positively moderate the effects
of skill variety, autonomy, and feedback on individual creativity. Thus, we hypothesized
that:
Hypothesis 5. Resources will moderate the relationship between the three job characteristics
and individual creativity, such that when perceived resources are high, (a) skill variety will be
more strongly related to individual creativity; (b) autonomy will be more strongly related to
individual creativity; and (c) feedback will be more strongly related to individual creativity.

Researchers have emphasized rewards as important organizational context in employees’

creativity (Amabile 1996; Byron and Khazanchi 2012; Sue-Chan and Hempel 2016); in
this regard, extrinsic rewards (contingent on creativity) have been considered as effective
in encouraging workplace creativity (Sue-Chan and Hempel 2016). However, prior stud-
ies have yielded inconsistent results in this regard – some researchers found negative
effects of rewarding activities on creativity (e.g. Amabile, Hennessey, and Grossman
1986), while others reported positive relationships (e.g. Eisenberger and Aselage 2009;
Eisenberger and Rhoades 2001).
Despite these inconsistent results, research suggests that rewarding employees can
increase intrinsic job interests, intrinsic motivation and self-determination, which in turn
positively affect individual creativity. Eisenberger, Pierce, and Cameron (1999) reported that

© 2018 Australian HR Institute 133

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 57

extrinsic rewards increased perceived self-determination, through supporting employees to

freely act on their tasks (i.e. autonomy). More recently, Sue-Chan and Hempel (2016)
showed that extrinsic rewards positively moderated the relationship between novelty and
performance. As such, studies indicate that extrinsic reward activities may positively affect
employees’ job characteristics and work motivation. Hence, we expected that extrinsic
rewards in support of creativity will positively moderate the effects of job characteristics
including skill variety, autonomy, and feedback. Thus, we hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 6: Extrinsic rewards will moderate the relationship between the three job characteris-
tics and individual creativity, such that when perceived rewards are high, (a) skill variety will be
more strongly related to individual creativity; (b) autonomy will be more strongly related to indi-
vidual creativity; and (c) feedback will be more strongly related to individual creativity.

To summarize, we proposed to study the actor–context interactions in workplace creativity.

In doing so, we first examined the direct effects of skill variety, autonomy and feedback on
individual creativity. Then, we tested the moderating effects of three organizational factors
on the direct relationships – organizational climate, resources and extrinsic rewards in sup-
port of creativity. The hypothesized model for this study is presented in Figure 1.

Method
Sample and data collection
We utilized a survey method to collect data for testing the proposed hypotheses. Online
survey questionnaires were distributed to 297 employees in a Korean for-profit organiza-
tion over 2 weeks in May 2015. The organization is one of the biggest conglomerates in
Korea and operates mainly in food and food service. A total of 257 individual responses
were returned (87% response rate). In terms of the demographics, 40% of the participants
were female, and the average age of participants was 34.7. Most participants had

Figure 1 Hypothesized research model.

134 © 2018 Australian HR Institute

 Sangok Yoo et al.

undergraduate degrees (80%), 12% held graduate degrees, and 7% held certificate/associ-
ates degrees or lower. Study participants had worked for an average of 9.1 years, and the
average experience in their current job was 4.6 years.

Measures
To measure constructs in this study, established measures validated in the literature were
used. As most survey instruments used in this study were developed in the western con-
text, all questionnaires were translated using translation-back-translation procedures for
use in the South Korean context, except for the organizational context questionnaire that
was originally developed in Korea (Roh, Cho and Cho 2011). All items used Likert-type
scales, ranging from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘strongly agree’) (see the Appendix). Gen-
der, age, and job experience were controlled. Further, a series of confirmatory factor anal-
ysis (CFA) were performed, and goodness-of-fit indices were reported to confirm
construct validity of our measures. The reliability coefficients were also reported for each
construct. The validity and reliability of each measure were analyzed using IBM SPSS
statistics 24 (IMB Corp. 2016) and IBM SPSS Amos 24 (IMB Corp. 2016) software
packages.

Individual creativity
Individual creativity was composed of expertise, creative thinking, and motivation. We
adopted six items from Amabile (1988) to measure expertise and creative thinking, and
motivation was assessed using three items from Price and Mueller (1986). These measures
were validated in the South Korean context in previous research (e.g. Kim 2007). CFA was
performed to confirm the construct validity of the three-factor model (v2(24) = 62.35,
p < 0.01; CFI = 0.95; NFI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.08). The reliability coefficient of this measure
for this study was 0.82.

Job characteristics: skill variety, autonomy and feedback

We assessed the three job characteristics using nine items developed by Hackman and
Oldham (1980). This measure was validated in the Korean context (e.g. Kim and Han
2006). Overall construct validity of job characteristic scale with three factors was con-
firmed (v2(24) = 62.35, p < 0.01.; CFI = 0.95; NFI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.08). The reliabil-
ity coefficients of skill variety, autonomy, and feedback were respectively 0.76, 0.85, and
0.75.

Organizational context: organizational climate, resources, and extrinsic rewards

To measure the context factors, we adopted 12 items developed by Roh, Cho, and Cho
(2011) in the South Korean context. Specifically, organizational climate, resources, and
extrinsic rewards were assessed using five, four, and three items, respectively. CFA was
performed to confirm the construct validity of the instrument with three factors
(v2(51) = 108.91, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.95; NFI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.07). The reliability coef-
ficients for each factor were respectively 0.81, 0.81, and 0.84.
© 2018 Australian HR Institute 135
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 57

Common method variance bias

As our study utilized a cross-sectional design with self-reported data, we tested for poten-
tial common method variance (CMV) bias. We first addressed CMV bias with Harman’s
(1967) single-factor test. This approach assumes that CMV bias is present when a factor
analysis reveals a single factor and one major factor explains the majority of the covariance
(Podsakoff and Organ 1986). A principal component analysis on all 30 variables returned
seven factors with eigen values >1, inclusive of the first factor explaining 27.8% of the total
variance. The results indicated that common method bias was not likely to affect our find-
ings. Further, CFA conducted with a single common factor failed to confirm the single
factor model (v2 (405) = 5.13, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.50; NFI = 0.45; RMSEA = 0.13). Over-
all, these efforts were likely to minimize CMV bias in the present study (Podsakoff et al.
2003; Reio 2010).

Results
We used IBM SPSS Statistics 24 to analyze our data, which included descriptive statistics
correlations, reliabilities and hierarchical multiple regression analyses. Note that to
minimize multicollinearity in moderated multiple regression, all constructs were mean-
centered when being analyzed (Kromrey and Foster-Johnson 1998). The variance inflation
factors had values around 1.0, which indicates that multicollinearity was not an issue in
this study.

Descriptive statistics, correlations and reliabilities

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics, including internal correlations among variables
and consistency reliabilities. All variables were significantly correlated with individual cre-
ativity (r = 0.16 to 0.59, p < 0.05). Among job characteristics, skill variety showed the
strongest relationship with individual creativity (r = 0.47, p < 0.01). For the organiza-
tional context factors, climate showed the strongest correlation (r = 0.59, p < 0.01).

Hierarchical multiple regression analysis

Table 3 shows the results from hierarchical multiple regression analyses through a four-
step process. In step 1, control variables (i.e. gender, age, and field experience) were
entered. The control variables explained 6.9% of the variance in individual creativity
(Adjusted R2 = 0.07). In terms of the effects, only age was statistically significant
(b = 0.24, p < 0.01). In order to test the first three hypotheses, the three job characteris-
tics were entered in step 2. The results showed that skill variety, autonomy and feedback
accounted for an additional 26.8% of the variance (DR2 = 0.27). All three job characteris-
tics positively affected individual creativity, supporting hypotheses 1, 2, and 3. Skill variety
had the strongest effect (b = 0.40, p < 0.01). Further, in step 3, although not hypothe-
sized, the organizational context factors also showed positive and significant effects on
individual creativity, except for extrinsic rewards. Only extrinsic rewards had a negative
effect on individual creativity (b = 0.21, p < 0.01).

136 © 2018 Australian HR Institute

© 2018 Australian HR Institute
Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and correlationsa
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Gender .40 .49

2 Ageb 34.65 5.85 .33**
3 Experienceb 55.65 52.07 .09 .50**
4 Skill varietyb 3.85 .65 .11 .23** .12 (.76)
5 Autonomyb 3.59 .76 .19** .34** .20** .18** (.85)
6 Feedbackb 3.71 .64 .001 .12 .13* .09 .39** (.75)
7 Climateb 3.66 .58 .18** .11 .02 .26** .50** .37** (.81)
8 Resourcesb 3.03 .68 .09 .23** .06 .21** .35** .21** .40** (.80)
9 Rewardsb 3.27 .73 .11 .07 .06 .12 .30** .30** .42** .48** (.84)
10 Individual creativity 3.76 .48 .16** .27** .13* .47** .38** .31** .59** .42** .16** (.82)
The rewards variable denotes extrinsic rewards.
a
Internal consistency reliabilities are in parentheses.
b
These variables were centered when being analyzed.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Sangok Yoo et al.

137
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 57

After adding all main effects, step 4 examined the interaction effects (hypotheses 4–6).
Compared to R2 in step 3, the change in R2 from the interactions was 5.6% (DR2 = 0.06).
Among the nine hypothesized interactions, two moderating effects of extrinsic rewards
turned out to be significant: skill variety 9 extrinsic rewards (b = 0.11, p < 0.05) and
autonomy 9 extrinsic rewards (b = 0.18, p < 0.01), supporting only hypothesis 6b.
Specifically, we found a significant and negative moderating effect of extrinsic rewards on
the relationship between skill variety and individual creativity. In other words, when the
perceived level of rewards was high, one’s skill variety was weakly related to individual cre-
ativity. Conversely, the moderating effects of extrinsic rewards was positive for the auton-
omy–individual creativity relationship. That is, when the perceived level of rewards was
high, one’s autonomy in work had a stronger relationship with individual creativity. All

Table 3 Results of hierarchical regression analyses

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Control
Gender .081 .051 .022 .023
Age .235** .073 .074 .055
Experience .022 .006 .041 .040
Job characteristics
Skill variety .396** .294** .256**
Autonomy .209** .003 .063
Feedback .185** .117* .143**
Organizational context
Climate .455** .461**
Resources .229** .202**
Rewards .214** .198**
Interactions
Skill variety 9 Climate .062
Skill variety 9 Resources .021
Skill variety 9 Rewards .113*
Autonomy 9 Climate .064
Autonomy 9 Resources .019
Autonomy 9 Rewards .181**
Feedback 9 Climate .029
Feedback 9 Resources .019
Feedback 9 Rewards .014
Model summary
Adjusted R2 .069 .337 .519 .575
ΔR2 .268 .182 .056
ΔF 7.361** 34.969** 32.538** 4.641**
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. The rewards variable denotes extrinsic rewards.

138 © 2018 Australian HR Institute

 Sangok Yoo et al.

other moderation effects were not significant. The significant interaction effects are
depicted in Figure 2.
In addition to testing our hypotheses, a helpful approach to reconcile the mixed influ-
ences of extrinsic rewards would be to test the potential curvilinear relationship between
extrinsic rewards and individual creativity. We thus ran a post-hoc analysis by adding a
quadradic term (i.e. rewards2) into the main effects model in step 3, including control
variables, job characteristics and organizational context. The results indicated that the
quadradic term for extrinsic rewards showed a significant and positive effect on individual
creativity (b = 0.11, p < 0.05). While this warrants further research, our post-hoc analysis
suggests a possible curvilinear relationship between rewards and individual creativity, at
least in the context of our study.

Discussion
This study aimed to investigate the actor–context interaction effects of job characteristics
(i.e. skill variety, autonomy and feedback) and organizational context factors (i.e. climate,
resources and rewards) on individual creativity. Overall, the results of this study are con-
sistent with previous research on creativity; they support the positive effects of skill vari-
ety, autonomy and feedback on individual creativity (e.g. Beugelsdijk 2008; Chang,
Huang, and Choi 2012) and confirm the moderating roles of extrinsic rewards (e.g. Sue-
Chan and Hempel 2016). Our study thus extends and contributes to the actor–context
perspective on workplace creativity, and provides several important implications for cre-
ativity research and practice.

Figure 2 Interactions between skill variety, autonomy and extrinsic rewards predicting individual
creativity.

© 2018 Australian HR Institute 139

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 57

First, our study contributes to the extant creativity literature by answering recent calls
to consider actor–context interactions in workplace creativity. Specifically, by examining
the moderating role of organizational context on the job characteristics–individual cre-
ativity relationship, we extend the current understandings of actor–context interactions in
creativity research (e.g. Shalley, Gilson, and Blum 2009). Previous empirical work has pre-
dominantly focused on independent effects of actors or organizational contexts and pro-
vided a one-sided view in understanding creativity (Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham 2004).
Furthermore, recent reviews of empirical research have reported inconsistent results
across main effects (e.g. Byron and Khazanchi 2012), underscoring the need to consider
the interactive effects of actors and contexts in offering a fuller understanding of work-
place creativity (Zhou and Hoever 2014). In this regard, our findings point to the com-
plexity of understanding factors that influence workplace creativity and suggest that
individual creativity needs to be understood by taking into account multiple context- or
domain-specific factors in the workplace.
Second, our study sheds light on the effects of rewards in fostering individual creativity
by providing a more nuanced view on the extrinsic rewards–individual creativity relation-
ship. Although initially not hypothesized, we found that extrinsic rewards had a negative
direct effect on individual creativity, lending support to the negative direct relationship
between extrinsic rewards and creativity reported in earlier studies (e.g. Amabile, Hen-
nessey, and Grossman 1986).
Further, to the best of our knowledge, no study has specifically examined the moderat-
ing role of extrinsic rewards on the relationship between job characteristics and individual
creativity. Moderation analyses indicated that high rewards tended to weaken the effects
of skill variety on individual creativity, whereas it strengthened the autonomy and individ-
ual creativity relationship. In addition, our post-hoc analyses revealed a U-shaped rela-
tionship between extrinsic rewards and individual creativity, indicating that moderate
levels of rewarding activities may have an adverse effect on individual creativity. These
findings indicate that the relationship between certain job characteristics and individual
creativity may be contingent on the level of extrinsic rewards provided by organizations
and alludes to the need to conduct further research on conditions under which rewards
promote or hinder individual creative performance.
Third, given the South Korean context of this study, our findings add to the broader
understanding of workplace creativity in non-western cultures. As previous studies have
often been conducted in the West, scholars have increasingly called for the need to exam-
ine antecedents and outcomes of workplace creativity in different national cultures and
international contexts (Lin and Liu 2012; Zhou and Hoever 2014). For example, Lin and
Liu (2012) investigated the effects of creativity climate on organizational innovation in
Taiwan, and illustrated some distinctive effects of Taiwanese culture (i.e. employee char-
acteristics and organizational culture) on innovation. By examining the actor-interaction
effects of creativity in the South Korean business context, our study extends this line of
research and adds to the understanding of cultural influences on workplace creativity.

140 © 2018 Australian HR Institute

 Sangok Yoo et al.

In particular, South Korean culture is rooted in specific values, such as harmony, con-
formity and trust (Hofstede 1980). In contrast to our expectations, only extrinsic rewards
moderated the relationship between job characteristics and individual creativity; specifi-
cally, rewards played a negative moderating role on the relationship between skill variety
and individual creativity. In line with recent studies (Tsogtbaatar and Hwang 2015), this
result indicated that South Korean employees, under conditions of high rewards, were less
motivated to learn and develop new skills and therefore exhibited lower levels of creativity.
In other words, when high rewards are provided, employees may tend to be complacent
about improving their performance. Therefore, while the contrasting effects of rewards in
relation to autonomy and skill variety warrant further research, our findings suggest that
the interactions between actors and context conditions may reflect distinct cultural values,
norms, and business environments, and underscore the need to further examine cross-cul-
tural effects in creativity research.
Lastly, our study provides practical implications for organizational leaders and HR man-
agers who aspire to foster workplace creativity. The findings indicate that organizations need
to take into account multiple individual- and organizational-level factors, to be more suc-
cessful in designing job tasks and organizational support systems that promote workplace
creativity (Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham 2004). Relying on single aspects, such as employee
work tasks and job characteristics, may not be effective and may even be detrimental when
encouraging employees to perform creatively. In a similar vein, in fostering workplace cre-
ativity, HR managers need to consider the importance of diverse individual work values.
Although work values were not directly investigated in this study, job characteristics and
organizational context factors closely relate to individual work values, as indicated by
research on employees’ psychological needs, intrinsic motivation, and job satisfaction (Cari-
cati et al. 2014; Schreurs et al. 2014). As James and Drown (2012) noted, scholars and prac-
titioners ought to take into account individual differences towards work values when
examining individual creativity. To be effective, practitioners need to carefully tailor job
characteristics, organizational support systems and work contexts to meet different individ-
ual work values in promoting workplace creativity (James and Drown 2012).

Limitations and future research

Our study is not without limitations, and further research is needed. First, our study uti-
lized a cross-sectional design and relied on self-reported data, which could have created
CMV bias and inflated correlations among the research variables. As described in the
methods section, we used several statistical approaches to test whether CMV bias was
affecting our data. We also followed recommendations by Podsakoff et al. (2003) and
used well-established, validated and reliable measures. The research participants were also
ensured of anonymity and were provided with clear instructions for filling out the surveys.
Indeed, our analyses indicated that CMV bias was not a significant problem. Nonetheless,
our cross-sectional design leaves room for speculation regarding causality among the
research variables. Regarding CMV bias, future research should complement our study

© 2018 Australian HR Institute 141

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 57

findings using longitudinal designs based on objective and/or secondary data, in measur-
ing creative performance at individual and organizational levels.
Second, our study was conducted in the South Korean business context. Our findings
therefore may not be generalizable and need to be interpreted with caution, when applied
to other national cultures and organizational contexts. To increase the generalizability of
our results, future research will need to complement and extend our study to different
contexts and include a broader range of participants with diverse demographic back-
grounds. Furthermore, as our study did not explicitly measure cultural values, further
research is needed to understand the specific influence of cultural values and orientations
on workplace creativity. In doing so, researchers may use established cultural frameworks,
such as the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness research (House
et al. 2004) or Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions (Hofstede 1980), when examining cul-
tural values and conducting comparative studies on workplace creativity. It is further rec-
ommended that researchers use country-by-country comparative analyses, instead of
clustering similar cultures or regions (Clark et al. 2016).
Third, we explicitly focused on individual creativity in this study; however, there is a
need to further explore potential antecedents and interactions pertaining to team/group-
and organizational-level creativity (Anderson, Potocnik, and Zhou 2014). This may
require researchers to simultaneously take into account multiple dimensions and levels of
creativity in organizations, using multi-level research methods. It would be worthwhile
for future researchers to investigate how individual- or group-level creativity may be con-
tingent on different factors at multiple levels of the organization under study. In a similar
vein, multi-level structural equation modeling can be a useful statistical technique, in
addressing not only nested structures in organizations but also illuminating complex
mechanisms underlying creativity research (Rabe-Hesketh, Skrondal, and Pickles 2004).
Finally, our study was conducted using quantitative survey methods. However, other
authors have raised concerns about quantitative studies currently being dominant in cre-
ativity research, and there have been calls to further examine workplace creativity using
qualitative research designs or mixed methods approaches (Zhou and Hoever 2014). In
this regard, it would be fruitful to use single or multiple case study designs to more deeply
understand subjective perceptions on creativity or the processes of creative work that
unfold in teams or organizations over time.

Conclusion
In light of dynamic and vast changes in business environments, global organizations are
striving to increase their capacity in fostering creative work and innovation (Chen and
Kaufmann 2008). Still, further research is needed to better understand the nature of and
different processes involved in workplace creativity, in particular the specific underlying
mechanisms and interactions among different levels of analyses (Zhou and Hoever 2014).
It is our belief that our findings will contribute to furthering the knowledge base in cre-
ativity research and provide important theoretical implications and practical guidance for

142 © 2018 Australian HR Institute

 Sangok Yoo et al.

HR scholars and practitioners. We also hope that more studies are conducted in different
national contexts to broaden our understanding of creativity and the mechanisms through
which creative performance can be fostered and enhanced.

Sangok Yoo is a PhD student in human resource development in the department of organizational
leadership, policy, and development at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. His current
research interests include team dynamics, team learning, and creativity, specifically through multi-
level and social network approaches.

Soebin Jang is a PhD student in human resource development in the department of organizational
leadership, policy, and development at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. His current
research interests include corporate social responsibility and business ethics, moral leadership,
organizational culture, and organizational development and change.

Yedam Ho is a PhD student in human resource development in the department of organizational

leadership, policy, and development at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Her current
research interests include mentoring, leadership development, organizational development and
change, and global leadership.

Jaekyo Seo is a PhD student in human resource development in the department of organizational
leadership, policy, and development at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. His research inter-
ests include shared leadership development, ethical business culture, and innovation.

Min Hee Yoo is a PhD student in adult continuing education and human resource development in
the department of education at Korea University in South Korea. Her current research interests
include work engagement, learning agility, leadership, and organizational development.

Appendix Questionnaire items

Individual creativity
IC1 I have enough domain knowledge to perform the job
IC2 I have expertise to supplement the shortcomings of others about the job
IC3 I have sufficient talent for the job
IC4 I am fascinated by challenging the problems that others find difficult and dangerous
IC5 I often try to share ideas about my job with experts in the same field outside my company
IC6 I often try to apply my existing work processes and methods to new areas of work
IC7 I feel satisfied when I perform my job well
IC8 I like to reflect on the day when I perform my job well
IC9 I try to think of how I effectively perform my job
Skill variety
SV1 The job requires me to do many different things at work, using a variety of my skills
and talents
SV2 The job requires me to use a number of complex and high-level skills

© 2018 Australian HR Institute 143

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 57

Appendix (continued)
Individual creativity
IC1 I have enough domain knowledge to perform the job
IC2 I have expertise to supplement the shortcomings of others about the job
IC3 I have sufficient talent for the job
IC4 I am fascinated by challenging the problems that others find difficult and dangerous
IC5 I often try to share ideas about my job with experts in the same field outside my company
IC6 I often try to apply my existing work processes and methods to new areas of work
IC7 I feel satisfied when I perform my job well
IC8 I like to reflect on the day when I perform my job well
IC9 I try to think of how I effectively perform my job
Skill variety
SV1 The job requires me to do many different things at work, using a variety of my skills
and talents
SV2 The job requires me to use a number of complex and high-level skills
SV3 The job includes quite complex and various tasks
Autonomy
AU1 The job permits me to decide on my own how to go about doing the work
AU2 The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do
the work
AU3 The job includes many tasks to use my personal initiative or judgment in carrying out
them
Feedback
FB1 The actual work itself provides clues about the results of what I am doing – aside from
any ‘feedback’ co-workers or supervisors may provide
FB2 Just doing the work required by the job provides many chances for me to figure out
how well I am doing
FB3 The job itself provides clues about whether or not I am performing well
Organizational climate
OC1 Our employees are willing to experiment with new ideas
OC2 Our employees are challenging difficult and complex problems
OC3 Our employees encourage each other in the face of failure in their attempt at new things
OC4 Our employees actively adapt to change in the workplace
OC5 Our employees are interested in new information about their jobs
Resources
RS1 I can organize a group of people in my organization to perform new tasks or develop
new ideas
RS2 My organization provides the funds needed to carry out new ideas
RS3 My organization provides equipment and facilities that help me materialize new ideas
RS4 My organization allows enough time to think through the problem from diverse
perspectives
Extrinsic rewards
RW1 My organization gives a fair assessment of creative performance
RW2 My organization well compensates creative ideas and suggestions
RW3 In my organization, the level of rewards for creative performance is appropriate

144 © 2018 Australian HR Institute

 Sangok Yoo et al.

References
Amabile TM (1983) The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 45(2), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
Amabile TM (1988) A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In BM Staw, LL Cum-
mings (eds) Research in organizational behavior, 123–167. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Amabile TM (1996) Creativity in context: update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview,
Boulder, CO.
Amabile TM, P Goldfarb and SC Brackfield (1990) Social influences on creativity: evaluation, coac-
tion, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal 3(1), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10400419009534330
Amabile TM, BA Hennessey and BS Grossman (1986) Social influences on creativity: the effects of
contracted-for reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.14
Amabile TM, R Conti, R Coon, J Lazenby and M Herron (1996) Assessing the work environment for
creativity. Academy of Management Journal 39(5), 1154–1184. https://doi.org/10.2307/256995
Ananthram S and A Nankervis (2013) Strategic agility and the role of HR as a strategic business
partner: an Indian perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 51(4), 454–470.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12004
Anderson N, K Potocnik and J Zhou (2014) Innovation and creativity in organizations: a state-of-
the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management
40(5), 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128
Andrews J and DC Smith (1996) In search of the marketing imagination: factors affecting the cre-
ativity of marketing programs for mature products. Journal of Marketing Research 33(2), 174–
187. https://doi.org/10.2307/3152145
Baer M and GR Oldham (2006) The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure
and creativity: moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal
of Applied Psychology 91(4), 963–970. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.963
Beugelsdijk S (2008) Strategic human resource practices and product innovation. Organization
Studies 29(6), 821–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608090530
Byron K and S Khazanchi (2012) Rewards and creative performance: a meta-analytic test of theoret-
ically derived hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin 138(4), 809–830. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0027652
Caricati L, RL Sala, G Marletta, G Pelosi, M Ampollini, A Fabbri, A Ricchi, M Scardino, G Artioli
and T Mancini (2014) Work climate, work values and professional commitment as predictors
of job satisfaction in nurses. Journal of Nursing Management 22(8), 984–994. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jonm.12079
Chang JW, DW Huang and JN Choi (2012) Is task autonomy beneficial for creativity? Prior task
experience and self-control as boundary conditions. Social Behavior and Personality: An Interna-
tional Journal 40(5), 705–724. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.5.705
Chen MH and G Kaufmann (2008) Employee creativity and R&D: a critical review. Creativity and
Innovation Management 17(1), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2008.00471.x
Chen CJ, HA Shih and YC Yeh (2011) Individual initiative, skill variety, and creativity: the moder-
ating role of knowledge specificity and creative resources. International Journal of Human
Resource Management 22(17), 3447–3461. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.599940

© 2018 Australian HR Institute 145

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 57

Clark JM, LN Quast, S Jang, JM Wohkittel, B Center, K Edwards and W Bovornusvakool (2016)
GLOBE Study culture clusters: can they be found in Importance ratings of managerial compe-
tencies? European Journal of Training and Development 40(7), 534–553. https://doi.org/10.1108/
ejtd-03-2016-0016
Coelho F and M Augusto (2010) Job characteristics and the creativity of frontline service employ-
ees. Journal of Service Research 13(4), 426–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2010.11.004
Csikszentmihalyi M (1988) Motivation and creativity: toward a synthesis of structural and energis-
tic approaches to cognition. New Ideas in Psychology 6(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0732-118x(88)90001-3
De Jong M, N Marston and E Roth (2015) The eight essentials of innovation. McKinsey Quarterly.
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/
the-eight-essentials-of-innovation
Deloitte (2013) Millennial innovation survey. Deloitte, New York, NY.
Eisenberger R and J Aselage (2009) Incremental effects of reward on experienced performance pres-
sure: positive outcomes for intrinsic interest and creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior
30(1), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.543
Eisenberger R, WD Pierce and J Cameron (1999) Effects of reward on intrinsic motivation-negative,
neutral, and positive: comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999). Psychological Bulletin 125
(6), 677–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.677
Eisenberger R and L Rhoades (2001) Incremental effects of rewards on creativity. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology 81(4), 728–741. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.728
Franken C (2001) A.S. Byatt: art, authorship, creativity. Palgrave, Basingstoke, UK.
George JM and J Zhou (2002) Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones
don’t: the role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4), 687–697.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.687
Glaveanu VP (2011) Creating creativity: reflections from fieldwork. Integrative Psychological and
Behavioral Science 45(1), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-010-9147-2
Grosser TJ, V Venkataramani and GJ Labianca (2017) An alter-centric perspective on employee
innovation: the importance of alters’ creative self-efficacy and network structure. Journal of
Applied Psychology 102(9), 1360. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000220
Hackman JR and GR Oldham (1975) Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied
Psychology 60(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076546
Hackman JR and GR Oldham (1980) Work redesign. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, New York,
NY.
Harman HH (1967) Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
He C, J Gu and H Liu (2017) How do department high-performance work systems affect creative
performance? A cross-level approach. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 56, 402–426.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12156.
Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values. Sage
Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
House RJ, PJ Hanges, M Javidan, PW Dorfman and V Gupta (eds) (2004) Culture, leadership, and
organizations: the GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
IBM Corp. (2016) IBM SPSS Amos for Windows, Verstion 24.0. IBM Corp, Chicago, USA.
IBM Corp. (2016) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA.

146 © 2018 Australian HR Institute

 Sangok Yoo et al.

James K and D Drown (2012) Organizations and creativity: trends in research, status of education
and practice, agenda for the future. In MD Mumford (ed) Handbook of organizational creativity,
17–38. Academic Press, Cambridge, MA.
Joo BK, GN McLean and B Yang (2013) Creativity and human resource development: an integrative
literature review and a conceptual framework for future research. Human Resource Development
Review 12(4), 390–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484313481462
Khatami M (2008) The mystical rhizome: towards a transcendent concept of technology. Iranian
Journal of Philosophy 36(3), 171–195. https://doi.org/10469/36295256/binder1
Kim H (2007) The effect of the servant leadership on subordinator’s self-concept, creativity and job
performances. [in Korean]. Doctoral dissertation, Jeju National University, Jeju-si, South
Korea.
Kim MJ and SY Han (2006) A comparative study on perceived job characteristics and its outcome
of hotel employees in Korea and America: based on job characteristics model of Hackman and
Oldham. [in Korean] Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Studies 20, 65–78.
Koednok S and M Sungsanit (2018) The influence of multilevel factors of human resource practices
on innovative work behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Science 13(1), 37–55.
Kromrey JD and L Foster-Johnson (1998) Mean centering in moderated multiple regression: much
ado about nothing. Educational and Psychological Measurement 58(1), 42–67. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0013164498058001005
Li H, F Li and T Chen (2018) Do performance approach-oriented individuals generate creative
ideas? The roles of outcome instrumentality and task persistence. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology 48(3), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12495.
Ligon GS, KA Graham, A Edwards, HK Osburn and ST Hunter (2012) Performance management:
appraising performance, providing feedback, and developing for creativity. In Mumford MD
(ed) Handbook of organizational creativity, 633–666. Academic Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lin CYY and FC Liu (2012) A cross-level analysis of organizational creativity climate and perceived
innovation: the mediating effect of work motivation. European Journal of Innovation Manage-
ment 15(1), 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061211192834
Liu D, XP Chen and X Yao (2011) From autonomy to creativity: a multilevel investigation of the
mediating role of harmonious passion. Journal of Applied Psychology 96(2), 294–309. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0021294
Malik MAR, AN Butt and JN Choi (2015) Rewards and employee creative performance: moderating
effects of creative self-efficacy, reward importance, and locus of control. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior 36(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1943
Newell A, J Shaw and H Simon (1962) The processes of creative thinking. In H Gruber, G Terrell,
M Wertheimer (eds) Contemporary approaches to creative thinking, 63–119. Atherton Press, New
York, NY.
Ohly S, S Sonnentag and F Pluntke (2006) Routinization, work characteristics and their relation-
ships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27(3), 257–279.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.376
Oldham GR and A Cummings (1996) Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work.
Academy of Management Journal 39(3), 607–634. https://doi.org/10.2307/256657
Plucker JA, RA Beghetto and GT Dow (2004) Why isn’t creativity more important to educational
psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psy-
chologist 39(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1

© 2018 Australian HR Institute 147

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 57

Podsakoff PM and DW Organ (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and pro-
spects. Journal of Management 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408
Podsakoff PM, SB MacKenzie, J Lee and NP Podsakoff (2003) Common method biases in behav-
ioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9101.88.5.879
Price JL and CW Mueller (1986) Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees. JAI Press, Green-
wich, CT.
Pulfrey C, C Darnon and F Butera (2013) Autonomy and task performance: explaining the impact
of grades on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology 105(1), 39–57. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0029376
Rabe-Hesketh S, A Skrondal and A Pickles (2004) Generalized multilevel structural equation model-
ing. Psychometrika 69(2), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02295939
Rasulzada F and I Dackert (2009) Organizational creativity and innovation in relation to psycho-
logical well-being and organizational factors. Creativity Research Journal 21(2–3), 191–198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410902855283
Reio TG (2010) The threat of common method variance bias to theory building. Human Resource
Development Review 9(4), 405–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310380331
Reiter-Palmon R, B Wigert and TD Vreede (2012) Team creativity and innovation: the effect of
group composition, social processes, and cognition. In MD Mumford (ed) Handbook of organ-
izational creativity, 295–326. Academic Press, Cambridge, MA.
Roh PD, YG Cho and KT Cho (2011) Development of an evaluation index of organizational cre-
ativity level. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society [in Korean] 14(1), 109–138.
Schreurs B, IJ van Emmerik, A Van den Broeck and H Guenter (2014) Work values and work
engagement within teams: the mediating role of need satisfaction. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice 18(4), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000009
Shalley CE, LL Gilson and TC Blum (2009) Interactive effects of growth need strength, work con-
text, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of Management Journal
52(3), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41330806
Shalley CE, J Zhou and GR Oldham (2004) The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on
creativity: where should we go from here? Journal of Management 30(6), 933–958. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007
Skerlavaj M, M Cerne
 and A Dysvik (2014) I get by with a little help from my supervisor: creative-
idea generation, idea implementation, and perceived supervisor support. Leadership Quarterly
25(5), 987–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.05.003
Sternberg RJ, JC Kaufman and JE Pretz (2002) The creativity conundrum: a propulsion model of kinds
of creative contributions. Psychology Press, Oxford, UK.
Sue-Chan C and PS Hempel (2016) The creativity-performance relationship: how rewarding cre-
ativity moderates the expression of creativity. Human Resource Management 55(4), 637–653.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21682
Thatcher SM and SA Brown (2010) Individual creativity in teams: the importance of communica-
tion media mix. Decision Support Systems 49(3), 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.03.
004
Tsogtbaatar A and HY Hwang (2015) The psychological empowerment and effects of extrinsic
rewards on employee’s intrinsic motivation and creativity. Korea Journal of Business Administra-
tion 28(11), 2973–3001.

148 © 2018 Australian HR Institute

 Sangok Yoo et al.

Varnali R (2015) An exploratory study of the cultural context of organisational climate and human
resource practices. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 53(4), 432–447. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1744-7941.12080
Weisberg RW (2006) Creativity: understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and
the arts. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Woodman RW, JE Sawyer and RW Griffin (1993) Toward a theory of organizational creativity.
Academy of Management Review 18(2), 293–321. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1993.3997517
Xerri M (2013) Workplace relationships and the innovative behaviour of nursing employees: a
social exchange perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 51(1), 103–123. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00031.x
Yong K, SJ Sauer and EA Mannix (2014) Conflict and creativity in interdisciplinary teams. Small
Group Research 45(3), 266–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414530789
Zhou J (1998) Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: inter-
active effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 83(2), 261–276. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.261
Zhou J and JM George (2001) When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the expres-
sion of voice. Academy of Management Journal 44(4), 682–696. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069410
Zhou J and IJ Hoever (2014) Research on workplace creativity: a review and redirection. Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 1(1), 333–359. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091226

© 2018 Australian HR Institute 149