See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348029394

Enhancing creativity in organizations: the role of the need for cognition

Article  in  Management Decision · December 2020

DOI: 10.1108/MD-04-2019-0516

CITATIONS READS

7 845

3 authors, including:

Pan Yan
Xi'an Jiaotong University
6 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pan Yan on 31 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0025-1747.htm

Enhancing creativity in Enhancing

creativity in
organizations: the role of the need organizations

for cognition
Yan Pan and Yufan Shang
School of Management, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China, and
Received 23 April 2019
Richards Malika Revised 13 November 2019
Pennsylvania State University, Penn State Berks, Reading, Pennsylvania, USA 27 July 2020
10 November 2020
Accepted 9 December 2020
Abstract
Purpose – The authors explain the conditions under which positive personality traits and work environment
factors either interact synergistically or yield diminishing-gains when creative individuals are in a supportive
working environment.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were obtained using a time-lagged design. The final sample
includes 350 researchers from 64 scientific research teams.
Findings – The results indicate that the need for cognition is positively associated with individual creativity.
Furthermore, this study suggests that perceived organizational support for creativity can complement an
individual’s need for cognition when it comes to individual creativity. This indicates a synergistic pattern. On
the other hand, psychological safety can substitute for an individual’s need for cognition when influencing
individual creativity. Thus, a diminishing-gains pattern also exists.
Practical implications – The results suggest that when individuals are stuck in environments of low
psychological safety, yet perceive higher levels of organizational support for creativity, their levels of creativity
can be boosted.
Originality/value – This study is among one of the first to explore a supportive context’s complementary or
substitution effect on positive personality traits by demonstrating the complementary effect of perceived
organizational support for creativity and the substitution effect of psychological safety. This study validates
the positive effect of the need for cognition on creativity. This study also enriches the psychological safety
literature by showing that psychological safety is not always necessary for individuals with a high need for
cognition.
Keywords Need for cognition, Psychological safety, Perceived organizational support for creativity,
Individual creativity
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Creativity, defined as the production of novel and useful ideas (Amabile and Pratt, 2016), is
conducive to organizational innovation, effectiveness, and survival (Anderson et al., 2014).
Thus, organizations attach great importance to employee creativity, and they provide
creative individuals with a favorable working environment in order to motivate their
creativity (Van Knippenberg and Hirst, 2015). However, this may not always work.
To date, we still lack an understanding of the different ways in which positive individual
and workplace factors interact with each other to influence creativity (Van Knippenberg and
Hirst, 2020; Zhou and Hoever, 2014). Paradoxically, although favorable workplace factors
usually facilitate individual outcomes, they sometimes have opposing effects on outcomes
when interacting with positive individual factors (Bavik et al., 2020). For example, Madrid

Funding: This work is supported by the key project of National Natural Science Foundation of China
(72032006): Platform ecosystem value co-creation mechanism and business model innovation, and the Management Decision
National Natural Science Foundation of China (71772149): The Effect of Leader Traits on Organizational © Emerald Publishing Limited
0025-1747
Paradoxes in the Context of Strategic Entrepreneurship: Emergence, Response and Dynamic Change. DOI 10.1108/MD-04-2019-0516
MD and Patterson (2016) found that openness to experience predicts individual creativity more
positively when organizational fairness is high. But Wu et al. (2014) found that an individual’s
need for cognition becomes more important in predicting individual innovation behavior
when that individual has lower job autonomy. According to Zhou and Hoever (2014), the first
example is a synergistic pattern where two factors jointly affect creativity in such a way that
their positive effects are mutually enhanced in a synergistic way (e.g. Chen et al., 2016; Fischer
et al., 2019; Madrid and Patterson, 2016; Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Pan et al., 2018; Zhou
et al., 2012). The latter is a diminishing-gains pattern in which a positive independent variable
predicting creativity is more important when the moderator is at a low level (e.g. Chen et al.,
2016; Hirst et al., 2018; Madjar et al., 2002; Wu et al., 2014). Our goal is to explain the conditions
under which positive personality traits and work environment factors interact either
synergistically or yield diminishing-gains. To this end, we explain why one particular
pattern, rather than the other, emerges when creative individuals are in a supportive working
environment.
We address this issue from conservation of resources (COR) theory. COR theory posits that
those personality traits and workplace factors valued by individuals are resources. Resources
help them achieve goals, reduce demands, and/or stimulate personal growth and
development (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Previous research shows that individual
creativity has strong roots in individual personality traits, such as motivational, affective,
and cognitive ones (Van Knippenberg and Hirst, 2020). Though these personality traits have
provided a plausible explanation in predicting individual creativity, very few of them take
cognition into consideration. Creativity largely depends on cognitive flexibility and cognitive
persistence (Nijstad et al., 2010). These individual cognitive personality traits are an avenue of
inquiry worthy of pursuing. The need for cognition is a personality trait that reflects the
extent of an individual’s tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful thinking (Cacioppo and
Petty, 1982). As creativity often requires effort resources (Chae and Choi, 2019), we postulate
that the need for cognition has a positive effect on individual creativity. Though studies have
demonstrated a positive relationship between the need for cognition and creativity (e.g. He
et al., 2019), they are primarily descriptive and lack theoretical explanations. According to
COR theory, the more resources an individual has, the more likely he or she will experience
“gain spirals” (Hobfoll, 2011). These gain spirals result in sufficient resources, which are
creativity stimulants (Amabile and Pratt, 2016). Thus, the need for cognition might predict a
heightened level of creativity.
Among positive workplace factors, we select perceived organizational support for
creativity and psychological safety. According to COR theory, organizational support and
safety are “resource caravan passageways” (Hobfoll, 2011). These passageways are
environmental conditions that accelerate change in resources (Halbesleben et al., 2014).
Resource caravan passageways are beneficial when they satisfy needs. Otherwise, they are
harmful. Perceived organizational support for creativity describes the extent to which
employees’ perceptions of encouragement, respects, rewards, and recognition of their
creativity from their organization (Zhou and George, 2001). This kind of organizational
context is supportive of creativity, and it can highlight the social desirability of being creative
(Koseoglu et al., 2017). Therefore, we believe it benefits personality traits, indicating a
synergistic pattern. However, psychological safety, defined as a shared belief that the team is
a safe environment for interpersonal risk taking (Edmondson, 2003), may be the opposite
case. Individuals with a high need for cognition are intrinsically motivated to engage in
creative tasks (Amabile et al., 1996). Therefore, a “safe” environment for interpersonal risk
taking may not be necessary for creativity. This suggests a diminishing-gains pattern.
Based on COR theory, our study explains why different patterns appear when individuals
with a high need for cognition are in a supportive working environment. Three theoretical
contributions emerge. First, our research responds to the call for a new mindset to explore the
person-situation interaction on creativity (Van Knippenberg and Hirst, 2020; Zhou and Enhancing
Hoever, 2014). Prior research shows the existence of a two-pattern phenomenon but does not creativity in
explain the reasons. We explain these patterns through the use of COR theory, rather than a
descriptive perspective. Second, our application of COR theory is among one of the first to link
organizations
it to the creativity domain (c.f. Chen and Hou, 2016; Sung et al., 2020). Building on COR theory,
we validate the positive link between the need for cognition and creativity. By introducing the
different boundary roles played by resource caravan passageways, we resolve the
inconsistent findings regarding the relationship between the need for cognition and
creativity. Third, our work provides a fuller understanding of the effects of psychological
safety by going beyond the traditional view that it is always desirable (Edmondson and Lei,
2014; Newman et al., 2017). Demonstrating that there are diminishing gains to psychological
safety when it comes to individual creativity for individuals high on the need for cognition, we
enrich research on the psychological safety literature.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Previous research on the relationship between the need for cognition and creativity
Prior research has examined the relationship between the need for cognition and creativity.
However, findings are mixed. Some studies found that the need for cognition is beneficial to
creativity (e.g. Dai et al., 2012; Dollinger, 2003; Hahn and Lee, 2016; Hardy et al., 2017; He et al.,
2019; Hunter et al., 2008; Partlow et al., 2015; Peterson et al., 2013; Rostan, 2010; Watts et al.,
2017). For example, in a problem-solving task, Butler et al. (2003) found that participants who
have a higher need for cognition come out with more creative ideas.
While studies, such as the ones noted above, document the enriching effect of the need for
cognition on creativity, other studies do not draw the same conclusion. For example, several
studies by Mumford and colleagues (e.g. Barrett et al., 2013; Marcy and Mumford, 2007;
Mumford et al., 2012; Robledo et al., 2012) indicated that the need for cognition failed to
predicate creativity. Madrid and Patterson (2016) also found that the need for cognition is not
directly related to creativity.
Overall, we have not achieved a consistent conclusion about the relationship between the
need for cognition and creativity. Watts et al. (2017) point out that inconsistent results might
come from sampling errors, research design, characteristics of the research context, and so
on. We acknowledge that the methodological issues mentioned above are important.
However, a suitable theoretical perspective should also be considered. In discussing the
relationship between the need for cognition and creativity, studies often overlook a
theoretical basis (e.g. Barrett et al., 2013; Watts et al., 2017). Furthermore, previous research
seldom considers boundary conditions of the relationship between the need for cognition and
creativity (except for Hahn and Lee, 2016). We use COR theory to address the above issues.

Conservation of resources (COR) theory

Conservation of resources (COR) theory has been applied broadly to stressful challenges in
the working context (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Risky and challenging environments involve
creativity (Zhou and Hoever, 2014), because it often means radical breakthroughs of the
current situation (Madjar et al., 2011). Thus, we apply COR theory to the creativity domain.
The basic tenet of COR theory is that humans are motivated to protect existing resources
and to acquire new resources (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Several corollaries of COR theory
emerge from this basic tenet. One is that those with greater resources are less vulnerable to
resource loss and more capable of orchestrating resource gain. Conversely, those with fewer
resources are more vulnerable to resource loss and less capable of resource gain (Hobfoll,
2001). When losses occur, individuals apply resource conservation strategies, whereby they
MD utilize the resources available to them in order to adapt as successfully as possible. Successful
adaption generates new resources which, in turn, replenish people’s resource pools and offset
the conditions that produce acute and chronic resource losses. Unsuccessful adaptation, in
contrast, results in both negative functional and emotional outcomes and diminishment of the
resources invested.
People’s resources exist in conditions that either foster and nurture or limit and block
resource creation and sustenance (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Resource caravan passageways play a
major role in this process. On the one hand, they may fuel broaden-and-build dynamics to the
benefit of goal achievement and additional resources. On the other hand, they may add to the
allostatic load of preservation. This bad-to-worse scenario typifies the downward trend that
leads to poor outcomes (Halbesleben et al., 2014). To conclude, resource caravan passageways
by themselves are not good or bad, but are detrimental when they are inconsistent with
individual needs.

The need for cognition and creativity

Prior research indicates that individuals high in the need for cognition have more intrinsic
motivation to engage in effortful cognitive processes marked by novelty, complexity, and
uncertainty (Cacioppo et al., 1996). We further propose that the need for cognition will
positively predict creativity. Those high in the need for cognition are better at linking new
and existing knowledge (Evans et al., 2003), and are more likely to clarify and assess the
information they are exposed to (Kearney et al., 2009). After cognitive elaboration, those with
a high need for cognition tend to develop a strong overall attitude toward the issue at hand
(Haugtvedt and Petty, 1992). This attitude helps them to persist in pursuing their goals
(Cacioppo et al., 1996). To conclude, individuals high in the need for cognition not only have
good information-elaboration ability, but also persistence in the face of adversity.
According to COR theory, when working on creative tasks, individuals will use all their
creativity-related resources to deal with challenges. Therefore, those who have a high need
for cognition will identify and mobilize these resources to help them better reflect on problems
(Yoon and Kayes, 2016), be more engaged in cognitive activities (Soubelet and Salthouse,
2017), generate more new ideas (Wu et al., 2014), and perform creative tasks better (Dollinger,
2003). In this way, their creativity may be enhanced (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Apart from this,
creativity typically entails hard work and persistence (Amabile and Pratt, 2016). When
pursuing goals, individuals high in the need for cognition will maintain sustained and
focused task-directed cognitive effort. This helps them to achieve creative ideas (Nijstad et al.,
2010). Thus, we hypothesize,
H1. The need for cognition is positively related to individual creativity.

Perceived organizational support for creativity enhances the need for cognition’s impact on
creativity
When organizations provide support for creativity, they enable individuals to have enough
resources to help them deal with the challenges and stresses of creative activities (Baer and
Oldham, 2006; Leung et al., 2011), and acquire knowledge that promotes mastery of complex
and uncertain tasks (Elliot and McGregor, 2001).
As the need for cognition requires a large amount of effort investment, both psychological
and physical resources can be exhausted when individuals take on creative tasks.
Organizational support for creativity mitigates the likelihood of this exhaustion of
resources, allowing individuals to fully engage in creative activities. To this end, strong
perceived organizational support for creativity can function as a fuel station, helping to
reduce strains (Richardson et al., 2008) and to recover from resource losses (Hobfoll et al.,
2018). So, perceived organizational support for creativity satisfies the individual need to be Enhancing
creative, thus helping the acquisition of resources. Once individuals acquire more resources, creativity in
they will be less vulnerable to resource loss, and can achieve their goals more easily (Hobfoll,
2011). With resource caravan passageways enriching resources, individuals’ need for
organizations
cognition will bring out more creativity.
On the other hand, a low level of perceived organizational support for creativity means
insufficient resource caravan passageways, leading to fewer resources. COR theory states
that individuals who have fewer resources will suffer more from resource loss (Hobfoll, 2001).
In this situation, if individuals attempt to employ what resources they have, it can result in
self-defeating consequences (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Therefore, when creativity is not
encouraged or respected in organizations, individuals may try to protect themselves from
resource loss rather than utilize their current resources, such as engaging in creativity-related
behaviors (Koseoglu et al., 2017). From the above theorizing, we suggest that the benefits of
the need for cognition should be more salient in enhancing individual creativity when
perceived organizational support for creativity is high. This moderation effect suggests a
synergistic pattern. Thus, we hypothesize,
H2. Perceived organizational support for creativity will moderate the relationship
between the need for cognition and individual creativity, such that the relationship
will be more positive when perceived organizational support for creativity is high.

Psychological safety diminishes the need for cognition’s impact on creativity

Psychological safety describes a shared belief that the team is safe to take interpersonal risks
including asking a question, seeking feedback, reporting a mistake, or proposing a new idea
(Edmondson, 1999). It alleviates individuals’ concerns about being embarrassed over
negative responses from their team members (Edmondson, 2003). Recent reviews
(Edmondson and Lei, 2014; Frazier et al., 2017; Newman et al., 2017) conclude that research
on psychological safety has mainly focused on its supportive role, such as enabling learning
behavior (Harvey et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2014), promoting knowledge sharing (Gerpott et al.,
2019), advancing performance (Koopmann et al., 2016; Roussin et al., 2016), enhancing
creativity (Castro et al., 2018; Hu et al., 2018a; Jiang and Gu, 2016; Lee et al., 2018; Peng et al.,
2019; Wang et al., 2018), engaging in proactive workplace behaviors (Chen et al., 2019), and
exhibiting voice behavior (Hu et al., 2018b).
Although psychological safety has lots of benefits, it can still have downsides when
functioning as a moderator. For example, Pearsall and Ellis (2011) have demonstrated its
negative influence, finding that teams high in psychological safety are more likely to engage
in unethical behavior. More specifically, teams high in utilitarianism take advantage of a
psychologically safe working environment to select the most profitable choice, even though
that choice may be unethical. Once the unethical suggestion is put forward as an option, other
team members seem to be willing to support it, given the climate of psychological safety.
In contrast to perceived organizational support for creativity, psychological safety might
weaken the influence of the need for cognition on individual creativity. When psychological
safety is high, individuals are encouraged to propose new ideas, ask questions and show other
creativity-related behaviors (Edmondson, 1999). All these behaviors require both effort and
thought (Edmondson, 2003). If individuals are encouraged to continue to put effort into these
tasks, they are likely to feel exhausted (Quinn et al., 2012). Under this circumstance,
psychological safety may even reduce work motivation because individuals tend to exert less
effort to protect themselves from further resource loss (Deng et al., 2019). Therefore, they will
put forth less effort in achieving creative goals. Apart from this, individuals with a high need for
cognition have personal resources, such as information-elaboration ability and persistence,
which can help them deal with difficulties and challenges when engaging in creative tasks. High
MD levels of psychological safety may be redundant for them (Madjar et al., 2002), because they
have the willingness and ability to think creatively, regardless of the situational factors.
According to COR theory, this kind of redundant resource caravan passageway will exert a
detrimental influence on resources, thus resulting in poor outcomes. Therefore, psychological
safety may weaken the positive relationship between the need for cognition and individual
creativity.
On the other hand, we argue that if individuals who have high need for cognition
experience low psychological safety, they would achieve more creative outcomes. Low
psychological safety may offer a unique opportunity to motivate those who have a high need
for cognition. When psychological safety is low, individuals are aware of being punished for
making mistakes. For those who have a high need for cognition, this not only provides them
with a good opportunity to think deliberately, but also inspires them to put more effort into
thinking (Martins et al., 2012). Therefore, their creativity may be enhanced. A good example of
this can be found in Edmondson’s (2003) finding that some teams lacking psychological
safety seem to come out with more creative solutions. To conclude, psychological safety
might function as an inhibitor to those with a high need for cognition, indicating a
diminishing-gains pattern. Therefore, we put forward the following hypothesis,
H3. Psychological safety will moderate the positive relationship between the need for
cognition and individual creativity, such that the relationship will be more positive
under relatively low psychological safety.

Methods
Sample, design, and participants
We conducted a time-lagged field study, collecting multilevel, multisource data from 350
members working on 64 scientific research teams from a research university in China. The
sample offered two advantages for testing our theoretical model. First, scientific research
focuses on both breakthroughs and incremental innovation. Creativity is needed in both
cases. Therefore, conducting creativity research in scientific communities can help us get a
comprehensive understanding of creativity (Zhou and Hoever, 2014). Second, the average
number of core researchers on scientific research teams are often fewer than twenty.
Psychological safety can be more easily formed in such teams (Edmondson, 2003).
At Time 1, surveys containing multi-item scales for the need for cognition and
demographic characteristics were administered to 449 target participants in 90 scientific
research teams. One month after the first survey (Time 2), we asked these participants to
complete questionnaires containing items for perceived organizational support for creativity
and psychological safety. Four weeks later, we asked each team’s direct leader to rate each
team member’s creativity at Time 3. It should be noted that direct leaders are those who
mentor their team members directly. These leaders would be the most familiar with team
members’ scientific research progress and performance. Thus, their evaluation of team
members’ creativity would be more accurate.
After matching leader-member responses and deleting invalid questionnaires, we were
left with a final sample containing 350 individuals from 64 scientific research teams. 60.6%
participants were male, ranging from 22 to 38 years old (M 5 24.8, SD 5 2.2), with an average
of 1.6 years of scientific research experience.

Measures
All scales were originally developed in English, and then were translated into Chinese using a
back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1986). Responses to all items were made on a seven-point
Likert-type scale, with possible answers ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 Enhancing
(strongly agree). creativity in
The need for cognition. Guided by the application of Wu et al.’s (2014) three-item “the need
for cognition” scale, we asked team members to rate the extent to which they themselves are
organizations
engaged in effortful thinking (Cronbach α 5 0.708). A sample item is “I like to have the
responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking.”
Perceived organizational support for creativity. Individual perception of organizational
support for creativity was evaluated using Zhou and George’s (2001) four-item scale
(Cronbach α 5 0.819). We asked team members to rate this construct. We changed the word
“company” in the initial scale into “university” to ensure a more accurate measurement. A
sample item is “Creativity is encouraged at our university.”
Psychological safety. We asked team members to evaluate psychological safety, using
Edmondson’s (1999) seven-item scale (Cronbach α 5 0.786). Sample items include “It is
difficult to ask other members of this team for help” (reversed) and “Members of this
team are able to bring up problems and tough issues.” Based on Edmondson (1999) and
Deng et al. (2019), we averaged team member scores into a team-level measure of
psychological safety. We got a mean r wg of 0.95, an ICC (1) value of 0.186, and an ICC (2)
value of 0.556. Though ICC (2) was lower than 0.70, aggregation is still justified by
theory and supported by the high r wg and significant between-groups variance (Chen
and Bliese, 2002).
Individual creativity. We used Farmer et al.’s (2003) four-item scale of creativity. This scale
has been found to have good validity and reliability (e.g. Liu et al., 2016). Furthermore, it
reflects the Chinese view of employee creativity (Farmer et al., 2003), which fits our sample
well. All of the items in this scale center on individual creativity, and can be accurately
answered if the rater is familiar with the ratee. Our sample is scientific research teams. Their
primary goal is to produce innovative outcomes. Therefore, the choice of this scale meets the
requirement of matching the measurement with the research context.
We invited direct leaders to assess the creativity of team members on their teams. This
approach follows Zhou and Shalley’s (2003) viewpoint that the use of a single leader rating of
employee creativity is acceptable. It also avoids the problem of self-assessment and reduces
the common method bias to some extent. A sample item is “(This team member) tries new
ideas or methods first.” The Cronbach α for this scale is 0.868.
Control variables. To reduce the likelihood that some demographic variables would
confound the relationships examined, we controlled for age (in years), gender (1 5 male,
0 5 female) and education background (1 5 graduate student; 0 5 PHD candidate). In
addition, we collected each individual’s experience conducting professional scientific
research. Four response options were available: “fewer than 2 years” (1), “2–3 years” (2),
“4–5 years” (3), and “more than 5 years” (4).

Analysis and results

We used Mplus 7.0 to test all the hypotheses. The need for cognition, perceived organizational
support for creativity, individual creativity, and all of the control variables were at Level 1,
while psychological safety was analyzed at Level 2.

Descriptive statistics
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations among all variables. As shown in
Table 1, the need for cognition is positively related to individual creativity (r 5 0.26, p < 0.01).
Neither psychological safety (individual level) nor perceived organizational support for
creativity have significant relationships with creativity. Before testing the hypotheses, we
MD Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Gendera 0.61 0.49

2. Age 24.77 2.20 0.09
3. Education 0.73 0.44 0.04 0.56**
b
Background
4. Scientific 1.60 0.87 0.02 0.44** 0.60**
Research Yearc
5. Need for 4.77 0.82 0.27** 0.09 0.14* 0.08
Cognition
6. Psychological 5.15 0.74 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.21**
Safety
(Individual)
7. POrgSfC 5.27 0.87 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.31** 0.56**
8. Individual 5.10 0.84 0.19** 0.04 0.05 0.14* 0.26** 0.02 0.01
Creativity
Note(s): POrgSfC 5 Perceived Organizational Support for Creativity
N 5 350 (Individuals), 64 (Teams)
Mean value and standard deviation for psychological safety at team level are 5.145 and 0.43, respectively
Table 1. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Means, standard ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
deviations, and a: 0 5 female, 1 5 male; b: 0 5 PHD candidate, 1 5 graduate student; c: 1 5 fewer than 2 years; 2 5 2 to 3 years;
correlations 3 5 4 to 5 years; 4 5 more than 5 years

calculated the ICC (1) value of individual creativity. This value is 0.482 (df 5 63, χ 2 5 379.23,
p < 0.001), indicating that 48.20% of variance can be explained by team level differences.

Confirmatory factor analysis

Mplus 7.0 was used to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on all four constructs.
The ML estimation was used and a satisfactory fit of our four-factor model was achieved
(χ 2 5 214.69, df 5 126; RMSEA 5 0.045, CFI 5 0.964, TLI 5 0.956). Chi-square difference
tests indicated that the four-factor model yielded a better fit to data than did either a three-
factor model combining need for cognition and creativity (Δχ 2 s 5 54.688, Δdf 5 1, p < 0.000),
a two-factor model (Δχ 2 s 5 159.275, Δdf 5 2, p < 0.000) (combining the need for cognition
and creativity together; combining perceived organizational support for creativity and
psychological safety together), or a one-factor model (Δχ 2 s 5 821.66, Δdf 5 3, p < 0.000).

Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis 1 states that the need for cognition is positively related to individual creativity.
Model 2 in Table 2 shows that there is a positive relationship between the need for cognition
and individual creativity (β 5 0.23, p < 0.000, 2-tailed test), thus supporting hypothesis 1.
We propose that perceived organizational support for creativity moderates the
relationship between the need for cognition and individual creativity in hypothesis 2. To
test this hypothesis, we first centered the independent and moderator variables. Second, we
calculated the product of these two centered variables. Third, we regressed individual
creativity on the need for cognition, perceived organizational support for creativity, and the
interaction item, together with control variables. Model 3 in Table 2 suggests that the
interaction item is significant (β 5 0.11, p 5 0.035, 2-tailed test). Therefore, hypothesis 2 is
supported. Furthermore, Figure 1 shows the moderation effect. A simple slope test shows that
the need for cognition is more strongly related to individual creativity at a high level of
perceived organizational support for creativity (β 5 0.31, t(349) 5 5.01, p < 0.001, than at a low
level of perceived organizational support for creativity (β 5 0.19, t(349) 5 3.02, p < 0.01).
 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Enhancing
β SE β SE β SE β SE creativity in
organizations
Constant 4.76*** 0.65 3.65*** 0.68 3.80*** 0.70 4.20*** 0.54
Individual-level
Gender 0.32*** 0.09 0.22* 0.09 0.21** 0.09 0.05 0.07
Age 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02
Education Background 0.11 0.14 0.17 0.13 0.19 0.13 0.07 0.12
Scientific Research Year 0.18** 0.06 0.18** 0.06 0.17** 0.06 0.01 0.07
Need for Cognition 0.23*** 0.05 0.25*** 0.06 1.11*** 0.42
POrgSfC 0.04 0.05
NfC 3 POrgSfC 0.07* 0.03
Team-level
Psychological Safety 0.17 0.10
Cross-level Interaction
NfC 3 PS 0.20* 0.07
Note(s): POrgSfC 5 Perceived Organizational Support for Creativity. NfC 3 POrgSfC 5 Need for
Cognition 3 Perceived Organizational Support for Creativity. NfC 3 PS5 Need for Cognition 3 Psychological
Safety
N 5 350 (Individuals), 64 (Teams)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Table 2.
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Results of regression
***. Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed) on individual creativity

5.0

Low POrgSfC
4.5
Individual Creativity

High POrgSfC

4.0

3.5
Figure 1.
Moderating effect of
perceived
3.0 organizational support
Low High for creativity
Need for Cognition

Hypothesis 3 predicts that psychological safety moderates the positive relationship between
the need for cognition and individual creativity. We group-mean centered all Level 1
variables, as suggested by Aguinis et al. (2013). Model 4 in Table 2 indicates that there is a
cross-level moderation effect (β 5 0.20, p 5 0.012). Thus, hypothesis 3 is supported. Apart
from this, Figure 2 suggests that the need for cognition will be more positively correlated with
individual creativity at the low level of psychological safety.

Discussion
Our results suggest that the need for cognition plays a role in predicting individual creativity.
Furthermore, when individuals perceive a high level of organizational support for creativity,
MD 7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5 Low Psychological

Individual Creativity
5.0 Safety
4.5 High Psychological
4.0 Safety
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Figure 2. 0.5
Moderating effect of 0.0
psychological safety Low High
Need for Cognition

their need for cognition will predict higher levels of individual creativity. When individuals
perceive a low level of organizational support for creativity, their need for cognition will
predict lower levels of individual creativity. This indicates a synergistic pattern. However,
psychological safety shows a diminishing-gains pattern. Specifically, the need for cognition is
more positively related to individual creativity under low levels of psychological safety than
high levels.

Theoretical contributions
The primary contributions of this research are threefold. First, we provide a deeper
understanding of the long-existing, yet unsolved issue in creativity literature. That is, what
kind of pattern (synergistic or diminishing-gains) will appear when positive personal factors
and favorable context characteristics interact to influence creativity. Specifically, we discuss
two resource caravan passageways— perceived organizational support for creativity and
psychological safety. We propose that the former functions as a facilitator, while the latter is
an inhibitor, when moderating the relationship between the need for cognition and individual
creativity respectively. When individuals perceive support from their organization, it might
not be useful for their creativity, as the content and form of support are unknown (Baer and
Oldham, 2006). However, when there is support for creativity, its enhancing effect on
creativity appears (Koseoglu et al., 2017). This enhancing effect can provide the additional
resources that creative behaviors require, helping those who have a high need for cognition to
accomplish creative tasks. Thus, perceived organizational support for creativity represents
the good aspect of “resource caravan passageways” and there is a synergistic pattern when it
moderates the relationship between the need for cognition and individual creativity. This
finding also validates the common view that organizational support functions as a positivity
enhancer (Bavik et al., 2020; Hur et al., 2015). However, when considering psychological
safety, we need to pay attention to its essence together with personality traits. Both the need
for cognition and psychological safety have a motivational component (Cacioppo et al., 1996;
Edmondson and Lei, 2014). The motivational effect of a favorable work environment may not
be necessary for individuals with a high need for cognition, as they often actively engage in
thinking, regardless of the environment (Wu et al., 2014). However, a low level of
psychological safety helps individuals think more deliberately, as making mistakes is risky in
a psychologically unsafe environment. Therefore, psychological safety functions as the
negative side of resource caravan passageways. A diminishing-gains pattern exists when
psychological safety moderates the relationship between the need for cognition and
individual creativity. Our findings suggest that the emergence of different patterns is
determined by whether resource caravan passageways satisfy individual needs. Though
previous research indicates the existence of synergistic patterns and diminishing-gains
patterns separately, they fail to integrate and theorize about them. Our study provides a Enhancing
theoretical explanation to this important research question. By doing this, our study responds creativity in
to recent calls for incorporating prominent person–situation theoretical perspectives to
understand the best combination of personal and situational factors to foster workplace
organizations
outcomes (Newman et al., 2020), especially in the creativity domain (Van Knippenberg and
Hirst, 2020; Zhou and Hoever, 2014).
Second, previous research built on COR theory focuses on how individuals react to stress
and strain (Halbesleben et al., 2014), how individuals allocate and conserve resources
(Demerouti et al., 2014), and how individuals maintain interpersonal relationships in the
workplace (Lam et al., 2017). Our study extends this line of research by applying COR theory
to the creativity domain. More specifically, we use COR theory to clarify why the need for
cognition can lead to individual creativity, while this relationship is still under heated debate
(Watts et al., 2017). We argue that individuals high in the need for cognition have better
information-elaboration ability and are more persistent in pursuing goals. These kinds of
personal characteristics will help them get additional resources due to gain spirals, and better
deal with task challenges. As a result, these individuals can think about more creative ideas
than can their counterparts. We validate the positive aspects of the need for cognition,
supporting prior research (e.g. Hahn and Lee, 2016; Hardy et al., 2017; He et al., 2019; Watts
et al., 2017). Furthermore, by incorporating the role of resource caravan passageways, we find
the boundary conditions of when the need for cognition predicts individual creativity more or
less positively. To date, prior research centering on the link between the need for cognition
and creativity was mostly in an experimental context (e.g. Butler et al., 2003; Hardy et al., 2017;
Hunter et al., 2008; Partlow et al., 2015). Though they provide a clear causality of the link
between need for cognition and creativity, they fail to tell us when the relationship is stronger
or weaker within a workplace context. Only a few studies have addressed this issue (e.g. Hahn
and Lee, 2016; Wu et al., 2014). Our exploration of boundary conditions thus enhances
workplace creativity research.
Third, while traditionally, researchers have focused on the beneficial effects of
psychological safety in the workplace (e.g. Edmondson, 1999), more recently, others have
proposed its negative effects (Frazier et al., 2017; Friedman et al., 2018; Newman et al., 2017;
Pearsall and Ellis, 2011). Our research provides empirical evidence for this latter view. Rather
than examining the direct costs of psychological safety (Deng et al., 2019), we put forward that
psychological safety is not detrimental in itself, but it can have an inhibiting role on creativity
when interacting with the need for cognition. We argue that psychological safety evokes
similar mechanisms that the need for cognition evokes, and accordingly, it can substitute for
this personality trait. Because being in a psychologically “safe” environment encourages
individuals to take initiative (Nembhard et al., 2006), those who are most likely to engage in
creative behaviors may not deem a high level of psychological safety to be necessary (Wu
et al., 2014). This conclusion is in line with the results of past studies showing that
dispositions to innovate are more important in unfavorable contexts (Madjar et al., 2002). As
such, our study provides a new perspective in exploring the negative effects of the interplay
between psychological safety and other factors, rather than focusing on psychological
safety’s direct effects on creativity. This complements prior research, that either highlights its
supportive role (Edmondson and Lei, 2014; Frazier et al., 2017; Newman et al., 2017) or its
detrimental effects (Deng et al., 2019), thus providing a fuller knowledge of how psychological
safety works.

Managerial implications
The results of this study suggest that organizations interested in enhancing individual
creativity should consider the working context as well as employees’ personality traits –
MD supporting similar suggestions by Van Knippenberg and Hirst (2020) and Zhou and Hoever
(2014). We derive three main managerial implications.
First, consistent with prior research, our study demonstrates the enhancing role of
perceived organizational support for creativity (Koseoglu et al., 2017). Therefore, it is critical
for organizations to provide a working context that supports creativity. Such a context may
be developed by setting creativity goals, giving employees timely encouragement of
creativity, providing feedback on creative ideas, and building a comprehensive reward
system for creative achievements (De Stobbeleir et al., 2011). However, even when the
organization provides opportunities for creativity, employees may not pick up on those
signals. Leaders play a key role in shaping employees’ understanding of the situation and
thus influence attitudes and behavior (Alexander and van Knippenberg, 2014). The key
insight here is that leadership can help people understand the situation in terms of the
opportunities and expectations for creativity provided. In their review, Newman et al. (2020)
documented the importance of transformational leadership’s role in facilitating employees’
perceptions on organizational support for creativity. Therefore, organizations should
consider providing training for leaders to exhibiting typical transformational behaviors that
could convey the information that the organization values creativity and wants to support it.
Behaviors such as framing positively about creative goals, role-modelling creative behaviors,
and providing individualized support for creative tasks are useful.
Second, our research also shows the counterintuitive finding that a low level of
psychological safety at work is not necessarily a bad thing for individuals with a high need
for cognition. Individual creativity levels may fail to excel when teams create a
psychologically safe working environment. A high level of psychological safety may cause
the feeling that seeking help for others is effortless, leading individuals to a comfort zone
(Edmondson, 2003). Therefore, it is important to alert team leaders to this potential pitfall of a
climate of psychological safety. Team leaders would be wise to keep a certain level of team
accountability (Earley, 1993) to counteract the comfort zone created by a work climate of
psychological safety. Effective actions include emphasizing the interdependent role of each
team member in team tasks (Comer, 1995).
Third, a major takeaway from this study is that individual need for cognition is always
beneficial for organizations valuing creativity. Therefore, for HR departments, it is crucial to
recruit those individuals with a high need for cognition. HR departments can ask questions
that measure the individual need for cognition when interviewing candidates. Organizations
should try their best to support and retain incumbents who have a high need for cognition,
because these employees are most likely to contribute to creative ideas. Other approaches
might be taken with incumbents who have a low need for cognition. Although at this moment,
we still lack knowledge of whether and how much it is possible to change the need for
cognition (Mensmann and Frese, 2019), scholars have suggested that it might be changeable
to a certain degree. One way is to satisfy individual needs for competence and mastery
(Cacioppo et al., 1996). Therefore, leaders can design training that helps employees raise their
competence, or provide courses that improve individual domain-related skills. After having
these types of training and development opportunities, employees might see the value of
engaging in effortful thinking.

Limitations and future research

This study, though it carries significant theoretical and managerial contributions, does have
several limitations. First, according to Zhou and Hoever’s (2014) framework, which
emphasizes actor–context interactive effects on creativity, there are several other patterns, in
addition to the synergistic and the diminishing-gains patterns we examined. These other
patterns are antagonistic, inhibitory, remedial, configurational and diminishing-losses. They
are also worthy of exploration and testing. Personal factors–self-concepts such as creative Enhancing
self-efficacy–have been shown to have an important role in predicting creativity (e.g. Haase creativity in
et al., 2018; Mittal and Dhar, 2015; Richter et al., 2012). However, few studies have explored
how contextual factors, such as job demands, interact with creative self-efficacy to influence
organizations
creativity. Job demands, such as time pressure, are often experienced at work. On the one
hand, time pressure can be viewed as hindering, as it interferes with cognitive resources and
therefore hampers creativity (e.g. Sijbom et al., 2018). On the other hand, time pressure can be
viewed as challenging, as it refers to an impediment to be overcome in order to learn and
achieve (e.g. Ohly and Fritz, 2010). Accordingly, the interplay between creative self-efficacy
and time pressure may be complex, indicating the existence of inhibitory or remedial patterns
in Zhou and Hoever’s (2014) typology. Employees also experience job resources at work.
A creative time frame can function as a job resource because it provides job autonomy for
individuals to finish tasks (Brem and Utikal, 2019). A sense of autonomy can motivate
individuals to engage in tasks (Gagn
e and Deci, 2005). Research has shown that a creative
time frame can increase creative output (Burkus and Oster, 2012). It would be interesting to
examine which pattern exists when creative self-efficacy and creative time frame function
simultaneously to influence creativity. We encourage future research to build on theories to
provide plausible explanations for the impact of various actor and contextual factors on
creativity.
Second, research on the relationship between the need for cognition and individual
creativity is inconsistent. These inconclusive findings may arise from both different
measurements of creativity and different kinds of creativity (Watts et al., 2017). Among
creativity measurements, the four C model of creativity is of great recognition (Kaufman and
Beghetto, 2009). There are four levels of creativity: Mini-c, Little-c, Pro-C, and Big-C. Pro-C
represent the creative products generated by experts in a given field. We believe that our
research is highly relevant to Pro-C, because our respondents’ work needs much domain-
related knowledge. Thus, the creativity concept or measurement in our research is embedded
within the four C model of creativity. Therefore, in essence, our adoption of definition and
measurement of creativity is appropriate. Apart from this, previous research on the need for
cognition’s impact on creativity was mostly examined under experimental situations. Our use
of Farmer et al.’s (2003) four-item scale of creativity is more suitable for the survey method in
workplace environments. Therefore, this method complements prior experimental studies,
and gives a strong evidence of the role of the need for cognition in enhancing creativity.
Future research may utilize other measurements of creativity to validate our study (e.g. F€ urst
and Grin, 2018; Snyder et al., 2019). Apart from this, creativity can be classified as either
incremental creativity or radical creativity. Different antecedents have been documented to
predict these two distinctive forms of creativity (Madjar et al., 2011). We therefore encourage
future research to explore whether the need for cognition can have different effects on
incremental creativity and radical creativity, and the mechanism among them.
Third, our research context is based on the assumption that team members rely mostly on
face-to-face cooperation. Therefore, a psychologically safe climate is easily formed through
this kind of effective teamwork (Salas et al., 2020), and we can accurately measure it. However,
as technological advancement has provided employees with other modes of convenient
communication, it is possible for individuals to collaborate via online platforms (Raghuram
et al., 2019). Under this circumstance, psychological safety in virtual teams may function
differently from face-to-face teams. However, only a few studies have tackled this issue (e.g.
Kirkman et al., 2013). Future research may compare psychological safety’s impact on the
personality-creativity link under both face-to-face and online contexts.
MD Conclusion
Organizations provide favorable working contexts to attract and retain creative individuals.
However, some people fail to maximize their creativity. This study illustrates the positive
relationship between an individual’s need for cognition and his or her level of creativity. The
impact of an individual’s disposition to enjoy thinking and that of perceived organizational
support for creativity appear to complement each other when it comes to individual
creativity, while psychological safety plays a substitution effect. Our findings highlight the
importance of providing organizational support for creativity, yet the relative unimportance
of providing psychological safety for creative individuals with a high need for cognition.

References
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R.K., Culpepper, S.A., Dan, R.D. and Brulin, G.P.D. (2013), “Doing good and
doing well: on the multiple contributions of journal editors”, The Academy of Management
Learning and Education, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 564-578.
Alexander, L. and van Knippenberg, D. (2014), “Teams in pursuit of radical innovation: a goal
orientation perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 423-438.
Amabile, T.M. and Pratt, M.G. (2016), “The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation
in organizations: making progress, making meaning”, Research in Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 36, pp. 157-183.
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996), “Assessing the work
environment for creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 1154-1184.
Anderson, N., Potocnik, K. and Zhou, J. (2014), “Innovation and creativity in organizations: a state-of-
the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1297-1333.
Baer, M. and Oldham, G.R. (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, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 963-970.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands-resources model: state of the art”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.
Barrett, J.D., Peterson, D.R., Hester, K.S., Robledo, I.C., Day, E.A., Hougen, D.P. and Mumford, M.D.
(2013), “Thinking about applications: effects on mental models and creative problem-solving”,
Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 199-212.
Bavik, Y.L., Shaw, J.D. and Wang, X. (2020), “Social support: multi-disciplinary review, synthesis, and
future agenda”, Academy of Management Annals. doi: 10.5465/annals.2016.0148.
Brem, A. and Utikal, V. (2019), “How to manage creativity time? Results from a social psychological
time model lab experiment on individual creative and routine performance”, Creativity and
Innovation Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 291-305.
Brislin, R.W. (1986), “The wording and translation of research instruments”, in Lonner, W.J. and
Berry, J.W. (Eds), Fields Methods in Cross-Cultural Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA,
pp. 137-164.
Burkus, D. and Oster, G. (2012), “Noncommissioned work: exploring the influence of structured free
time on creativity and innovation”, Journal of Strategic Leadership, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 48-60.
Butler, A.B., Scherer, L.L. and Reiter-Palmon, R. (2003), “Effects of solution elicitation aids and need
for cognition on the generation of solutions to ill-structured problems”, Creativity Research
Journal, Vol. 15 Nos 2-3, pp. 235-244.
Cacioppo, J.T. and Petty, R.E. (1982), “The need for cognition”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 116-131.
Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Feinstein, J.A. and Jarvis, W.B.G. (1996), “Dispositional differences in Enhancing
cognitive motivation: the life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 119 No. 2, pp. 197-253. creativity in
Castro, D., Anseel, F., Kluger, A., Lloyd, K. and Turjeman-Levi, Y. (2018), “Mere listening effect on
organizations
creativity and the mediating role of psychological safety”, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
and the Arts, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 489-502.
Chae, H. and Choi, J.N. (2019), “Routinization, free cognitive resources and creativity: the role of
individual and contextual contingencies”, Human Relations, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 420-443.
Chen, G. and Bliese, P.D. (2002), “The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and
collective efficacy: evidence for discontinuity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3,
pp. 549-556.
Chen, A.S. and Hou, Y.H. (2016), “The effects of ethical leadership, voice behavior and climates for
innovation on creativity: a moderated mediation examination”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Chen, T., Li, F. and Leung, K. (2016), “When does supervisor support encourage innovative behavior?
Opposite moderating effects of general self-efficacy and internal locus of control”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 123-158.
Chen, S., Jiang, W., Zhang, G. and Chu, F. (2019), “Spiritual leadership on proactive workplace
behavior: the role of organizational identification and psychological safety”, Frontiers in
Psychology, Vol. 10 No. May, p. 1206.
Comer, D.R. (1995), “A model of social loafing in real work groups”, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 6,
pp. 647-667.
Dai, D.Y., Tan, X., Marathe, D., Valtcheva, A., Pruzek, R.M. and Shen, J. (2012), “Influences of social
and educational environments on creativity during adolescence: does SES matter?”, Creativity
Research Journal, Vol. 24 Nos 2-3, pp. 191-199.
De Stobbeleir, K.E.M., Ashford, S.J. and Buyens, D. (2011), “Self-regulation of creativity at work: the
role of feedback-seeking behavior in creative performance”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 811-831.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M. (2014), “Burnout and job performance: the moderating role
of selection, optimization, and compensation strategies”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 96-107.
Deng, H., Leung, K., Lam, C.K. and Huang, X. (2019), “Slacking off in comfort: a dual-pathway model
for psychological safety climate”, Journal of Management, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 1114-1144.
Dollinger, S.J. (2003), “Need for uniqueness, need for cognition, and creativity”, Journal of Creative
Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 99-116.
Earley, P.C. (1993), “East meets West meets Mideast: further explorations of collectivistic and
individualistic work groups”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 319-348.
Edmondson, A.C. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 350-383.
Edmondson, A.C. (2003), “Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: a group lens”, in
Kramer, R.M. and Cook, K.S. (Eds), Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and
Approaches, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY, pp. 239-272.
Edmondson, A.C. and Lei, Z. (2014), “Psychological safety: the history, renaissance, and future of an
interpersonal construct”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 23-43.
Elliot, A.J. and McGregor, H.A. (2001), “A 2 3 2 achievement goal framework”, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 501-519.
MD Evans, C., Fabrigar, L., Kirby, J. and Evans, C. (2003), “Approaches to learning, need for cognition, and
strategic flexibility among university students”, British Journal of Educational Psychology,
Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 507-528.
Farmer, S.M., Tierney, P. and Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2003), “Employee creativity in Taiwan: an
application of role identity theory”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 618-630.
Fischer, C., Malycha, C.P., Schafmann, E. and Fischer, C. (2019), “The influence of intrinsic motivation
and synergistic extrinsic motivators on creativity and innovation”, Frontiers in Psychology,
Vol. 10, p. 137.
Frazier, M.L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R.L., Pezeshkan, A. and Vracheva, V. (2017), “Psychological
safety: a meta-analytic review and extension”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 113-165.
Friedman, A., Carmeli, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2018), “When does respectful engagement with one’s
supervisor foster help-seeking behaviors and performance?”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 104, pp. 184-198.
urst, G. and Grin, F. (2018), “A comprehensive method for the measurement of everyday creativity”,
F€
Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 28, pp. 84-97.
Gagn
e, M. and Deci, E.L. (2005), “Self-determination theory and work motivation”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 331-362.
Gerpott, F.H., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Wenzel, R. and Voelpel, S.C. (2019), “Age diversity and
learning outcomes in organizational training groups: the role of knowledge sharing and
psychological safety”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 30,
pp. 1-28, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2019.1640763.
Haase, J., Hoff, E.V., Hanel, P.H.P. and Innes-Ker, 
A. (2018), “A meta-analysis of the relation between
creative self-efficacy and different creativity measurements”, Creativity Research Journal,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Hahn, M.H. and Lee, C.K. (2016), “Exploring the role of self-confidence, need-for-cognition, and the
degree of IT support on individual creativity: multilevel analysis approach”, Current
Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 565-576.
Halbesleben, J.R.B., Neveu, J.P., Paustian-underdahl, S.C. and Westman, M. (2014), “Getting to the
‘COR’: understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1334-1364.
Hardy, J.H., Ness, A.M. and Mecca, J. (2017), “Outside the box: epistemic curiosity as a predictor of
creative problem solving and creative performance”, Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol. 104, pp. 230-237.
Harvey, J.-F., Johnson, K.J., Roloff, K.S. and Edmondson, A.C. (2019), “From orientation to behavior: the
interplay between learning orientation, open-mindedness, and psychological safety in team
learning”, Human Relations, Vol. 72 No. 11, pp. 1726-1751.
Haugtvedt, C.P. and Petty, R.E. (1992), “Personality and persuasion: need for cognition moderates the
persistence and resistance of attitude change”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 308-319.
He, L., Zhuang, K., Li, Y., Sun, J., Meng, J., Zhu, W., Mao, Y., Chen, Q., Chen, X. and Qiu, J. (2019), “Brain
flexibility associated with need for cognition contributes to creative achievement”,
Psychophysiology, Vol. 56 No. 12, doi: 10.1111/psyp.13464.
Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., Zhou, Q., Zhu, C. and Tsai, P.C.-F. (2018), “Exploitation and exploration
climates’ influence on performance and creativity: diminishing returns as function of self-
efficacy”, Journal of Management, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 870-891.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001), “The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process:
advancing conservation of resources theory”, Applied Psychology: An International Review,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 337-421.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2011), “Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 116-122.
Hobfoll, S.E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.P. and Westman, M. (2018), “Conservation of resources in the Enhancing
organizational context: the reality of resources and their consequences”, Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 10.1-10.26. creativity in
Hu, J., Erdogan, B., Jiang, K., Bauer, T.N. and Liu, S. (2018a), “Leader humility and team creativity: the
organizations
role of team information sharing, psychological safety, and power distance”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 313-323.
Hu, Y., Zhu, L., Zhou, M., Li, J., Maguire, P., Sun, H. and Wang, D. (2018b), “Exploring the influence of
ethical leadership on voice behavior: how leader-member exchange, psychological safety and
psychological empowerment influence employees’ willingness to speak out”, Frontiers in
Psychology, Vol. 9, p. 1718.
Hunter, S.T., Bedell-Avers, K.E., Hunsicker, C.M., Mumford, M.D. and Ligon, G.S. (2008), “Applying
multiple knowledge structures in creative thought: effects on idea generation and problem-
solving”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 137-154.
Hur, W.-M., Han, S.-J., Yoo, J.-J. and Moon, T.W. (2015), “The moderating role of perceived
organizational support on the relationship between emotional labor and job-related outcomes”,
Management Decision, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 605-624.
Jiang, W. and Gu, Q. (2016), “How abusive supervision and abusive supervisory climate influence
salesperson creativity and sales team effectiveness in China”, Management Decision, Vol. 54
No. 2, pp. 455-475.
Kaufman, J. and Beghetto, R. (2009), “Beyond big and little: the four C Model of creativity”, Review of
General Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Kearney, E., Gebert, D. and Voelpel, S.C. (2009), “When and how diversity benefits teams: the
importance of team members’ need for cognition”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52
No. 3, pp. 581-598.
Kirkman, B.L., Cordery, J.L., Mathieu, J., Rosen, B. and Kukenberger, M. (2013), “Global organizational
communities of practice: the effects of nationality diversity, psychological safety, and media
richness on community performance”, Human Relations, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 333-362.
Koopmann, J., Lanaj, K., Wang, M., Zhou, L. and Shi, J. (2016), “Nonlinear effects of team tenure on
team psychological safety climate and climate strength: implications for average team member
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 101 No. 7, pp. 940-957.
Koseoglu, G., Liu, Y. and Shalley, C.E. (2017), “Working with creative leaders: exploring the
relationship between supervisors’ and subordinates’ creativity”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 798-811.
Lam, C.K., Walter, F. and Huang, X. (2017), “Supervisors’ emotional exhaustion and abusive
supervision: the moderating roles of perceived subordinate performance and supervisor self-
monitoring”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 1151-1166.
Lee, H.W., Choi, J.N. and Kim, S. (2018), “Does gender diversity help teams constructively manage
status conflict? An evolutionary perspective of status conflict, team psychological safety, and
team creativity”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 144, pp. 187-199.
Leung, K., Huang, K., Su, C. and Lu, L. (2011), “Curvilinear relationships between role stress and
innovative performance: moderating effects of perceived support for innovation”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 4, pp. 741-758.
Liu, S., Hu, J., Li, Y., Wang, Z. and Lin, X. (2014), “Examining the cross-level relationship between
shared leadership and learning in teams: evidence from China”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 282-295.
Liu, W., Zhang, P., Liao, J., Hao, P. and Mao, J. (2016), “Abusive supervision and employee creativity:
the mediating role of psychological safety and organizational identification”, Management
Decision, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 130-147.
MD Madjar, N., Oldham, G.R. and Pratt, M.G. (2002), “There’s no place like home? The contributions of
work and nonwork creativity support to employees’ creative performance”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 757-767.
Madjar, N., Greenberg, E. and Chen, Z. (2011), “Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity,
and routine, noncreative performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 730-743.
Madrid, H.P. and Patterson, M.G. (2016), “Creativity at work as a joint function between openness to
experience, need for cognition and organizational fairness”, Learning and Individual Differences,
Vol. 51, pp. 409-416.
Marcy, T.R. and Mumford, M.D. (2007), “Social innovation: enhancing creative performance through
causal analysis”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 19 Nos 2-3, pp. 123-140.
Martins, L.L., Schilpzand, M.C., Kirkman, B.L., Silvester, I. and Ivanaj, V. (2012), “A contingency view
of the effects of cognitive diversity on team performance: the moderating roles of team
psychological safety and relationship conflict”, Small Group Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 96-126.
Mensmann, M. and Frese, M. (2019), “Who stays proactive after entrepreneurship training? Need for
cognition, personal initiative maintenance, and well-being”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 20-37.
Mittal, S. and Dhar, R.L. (2015), “Transformational leadership and employee creativity: mediating role
of creative self-efficacy and moderating role of knowledge sharing”, Management Decision,
Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 894-910.
Mumford, M.D., Hester, K.S., Robledo, I.C., Peterson, D.R., Day, E.A., Hougen, D.F. and Barrett, J.D.
(2012), “Mental models and creative problem-solving: the relationship of objective and
subjective model attributes”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 311-330.
Nembhard, I.M., Edmondson, A.C., Ramanujam, R. and Rousseau, D.M. (2006), “Making it safe: the
effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and
improvement efforts in health care teams”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 7,
pp. 941-966.
Newman, A., Donohue, R. and Eva, N. (2017), “Psychological safety: a systematic review of the
literature”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 521-535.
Newman, A., Round, H., Wang, S. and Mount, M. (2020), “Innovation climate: a systematic review of
the literature and agenda for future research”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 73-109.
Nijstad, B.A., De Dreu, C.K.W., Rietzschel, E.F. and Baas, M. (2010), “The dual pathway to creativity
model: creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence”, European Review of Social
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 34-77.
Ohly, S. and Fritz, C. (2010), “Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive
behavior: a multi-level study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 543-565.
Oldham, G.R. and Cummings, A. (1996), “Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at
work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 607-634.
Pan, J., Liu, S., Ma, B. and Qu, Z. (2018), “How does proactive personality promote creativity? A
multilevel examination of the interplay between formal and informal leadership”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 852-874.
Partlow, P.J., Medeiros, K.E. and Mumford, M.D. (2015), “Leader cognition in vision formation:
simplicity and negativity”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 448-469.
Pearsall, M.J. and Ellis, A.P.J. (2011), “Thick as thieves: the effects of ethical orientation and
psychological safety on unethical team behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 2,
pp. 401-411.
Peng, J., Wang, Z. and Chen, X. (2019), “Does self-serving leadership hinder team creativity? A
moderated dual-path model”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 159 No. 2, pp. 419-433.
Peterson, D.R., Barrett, J.D., Hester, K.S., Robledo, I.C., Hougen, D.F., Day, E.A. and Mumford, M.D. Enhancing
(2013), “Teaching people to manage constraints: effects on creative problem-solving”, Creativity
Research Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 335-347. creativity in
Quinn, R.W., Spreitzer, G.M. and Lam, C.F. (2012), “Building a sustainable model of human energy in
organizations
organizations: exploring the critical role of resources”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 337-396.
Raghuram, S., Hill, N.S., Gibbs, J.L. and Maruping, L.M. (2019), “Virtual work: bridging research
clusters”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 308-341.
Richardson, H.A., Yang, J., Vandenberg, R.J., Dejoy, D.M. and Wilson, M.G. (2008), “Perceived
organizational support’s role in stressor-strain relationships”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 789-810.
Richter, A.W., Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., Baer, M. and Richter, A.W. (2012), “Creative self-efficacy
and individual creativity in team contexts: cross-level interactions with team informational
resources”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 6, pp. 1282-1290.
Robledo, I.C., Hester, K.S., Peterson, D.R., Barrett, J.D., Day, E.A., Hougen, D.P. and Mumford, M.D.
(2012), “Errors and understanding: the effects of error-management training on creative
problem-solving”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 24 Nos 2-3, pp. 220-234.
Rostan, S.M. (2010), “Studio learning: motivation, competence, and the development of young art
students’ talent and creativity”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 261-271.
Roussin, C.J., Maclean, T.L. and Rudolph, J.W. (2016), “The safety in unsafe teams: a multilevel
approach to team psychological safety”, Journal of Management, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 1409-1433.
Salas, E., Bisbey, T.M., Traylor, A.M. and Rosen, M.A. (2020), “Can teamwork promote safety in
organizations?”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 283-313.
Sijbom, R.B.L., Anseel, F., Crommelinck, M., De Beuckelaer, A. and De Stobbeleir, K.E.M. (2018), “Why
seeking feedback from diverse sources may not be sufficient for stimulating creativity: the role
of performance dynamism and creative time pressure”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 355-368.
Snyder, H., Hammond, J., Grohman, M. and Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019), “Creativity measurement in
undergraduate students from 1984-2013: a systematic review”, Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 133-143.
Soubelet, A. and Salthouse, T.A. (2017), “Does need for cognition have the same meaning at different
ages?”, Assessment, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 987-998.
Sung, S.Y., Rhee, Y.W., Lee, J.E. and Choi, J.N. (2020), “Dual pathways of emotional competence
towards incremental and radical creativity: resource caravans through feedback-seeking
frequency and breadth”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 421-433.
Van Knippenberg, D. and Hirst, G. (2015), “A cross-level perspective on creativity at work: person-in-
situation interactions”, in Shalley, C.E., Hitt, M.A.H. and Zhou, J. (Eds), Oxford Handbook of
Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship, Oxford University Press, New York, NY,
pp. 225-244.
Van Knippenberg, D. and Hirst, G. (2020), “A motivational lens model of person 3 situation
interactions in employee creativity”, Journal of Applied Psychology. doi: 10.1037/ap10000486.
Wang, Y., Liu, J. and Zhu, Y. (2018), “Humble leadership, psychological safety, knowledge sharing,
and follower creativity: a cross-level investigation”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9, p. 1727.
Watts, L.L., Steele, L.M. and Song, H. (2017), “Reexamining the relationship between need for
cognition and creativity: predicting creative problem solving across multiple domains”,
Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 21-28.
Wu, C.H., Parker, S.K. and de Jong, J.P.J. (2014), “Need for cognition as an antecedent of individual
innovation behavior”, Journal of Management, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1511-1534.
MD Yoon, J. and Kayes, D.C. (2016), “Employees’ self-efficacy and perception of individual learning in
teams: the cross-level moderating role of team-learning behavior”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 1044-1060.
Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2001), “When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the
expression of voice”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 682-696.
Zhou, J. and Hoever, I.J. (2014), “Research on workplace creativity: a review and redirection”, Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 333-359.
Zhou, J. and Shalley, C.E. (2003), “Research on employee creativity: a critical review and directions for
future research”, Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 165-218.
Zhou, Q., Hirst, G. and Shipton, H. (2012), “Context matters: combined influence of participation and
intellectual stimulation on the promotion focus–employee creativity relationship”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 894-909.

Corresponding author
Yan Pan can be contacted at: 614321230@qq.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats