Received: 10 January 2019 Revised: 10 May 2020 Accepted: 11 May 2020

DOI: 10.1111/caim.12397

REGULAR ARTICLE

Gender and support for creativity at work

Christa Taylor1 | Zorana Ivcevic1 | Julia Moeller2 | Marc Brackett1

1
Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, Yale
University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
2
University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
Correspondence
Christa Taylor, University catholique de
Louvain, IPSY Place Cardinal Mercier
10/L3.05.01, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve,
Belgium.
Email: christa.taylor@uclouvain.be
Funding information
Faas Foundation
Although innovation is vital for the success of organizations, many may not be capi-
talizing on the creativity of all workers. Gender bias in attributions of creativity may
lead to an imbalance in the extent to which organizations support the creativity of
men and women. Because organizational support for creativity is positively associ-
ated with creative outcomes, this may undermine the creativity of women in the
workplace. To determine if gender influences creative workplace behavior through
support for creativity, conditional process models were used to analyze the survey
responses and external employment data of workers (N = 14,590) across industries in
the US. Our analyses demonstrate that men report greater support for creativity in
the workplace than women, and greater support for workplace creativity leads to
more frequent creative workplace behaviors. The proportion of women employed in
an industry influences this relationship, such that differences between men and
women become smaller as the proportion of women in an industry increases. How-
ever, the level of creativity required in an occupation does not influence the relation-
ship between gender and creativity. The theoretical and practical implications of
these results are discussed.

KEYWORDS

creativity, gender, innovation, occupation

1 | THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018), understanding how discrepancies in

Innovation, “the successful implementation of creative ideas within an
organization” (Amabile & Pratt, 2016, p. 158), is vital for the success
of organizations and is driven by the creativity of individual employees
(Scott & Bruce, 1994). Indeed, organizational leaders identify creativ-
ity (i.e., a novel and useful idea, product, service, etc.; Woodman, Saw-
yer, & Griffin, 2013) and creative thinking as one of the most valuable
skills for employees to possess (Accenture, 2013; Forrester
Consulting, 2014; IBM, 2010). However, many organizations may not
be capitalizing on the creativity of all workers. Despite evidence that
the creative ability of men and women does not differ (Baer &
Kaufman, 2008; Runco, Cramond, & Pagnani, 2010), gender bias may
influence how the creativity of workers is perceived and rewarded.
Recent research suggests that men are deemed more creative and
receive greater benefits for engaging in creative behavior (Luksyte,
Unsworth, & Avery, 2017; Proudfoot, Kay, & Koval, 2015). Given that
women represent approximately 47% of the US workforce (U.S.
support for creativity influence creative behavior is crucial to info-
rming equitable management practices and helping organizations max-
imally benefit from the creativity of all workers.
Several theories of creativity have highlighted the role of the
social context in creative behavior (e.g., Amabile, 1983; Tierney &
Farmer, 2002). For instance, Amabile's Componential Theory of Crea-
tivity (Amabile, 1983; Amabile & Pratt, 2016 for updated model) sug-
gests that individual characteristics (i.e., domain-relevant skills,
creativity-relevant skills, and task motivation) and social environment
interact to influence creativity. In an organizational context, this sug-
gests that an employee who has sufficient creative ability and motiva-
tion will not make creative contributions unless the work setting is
conducive to creative behavior. Although the appropriate setting for
creativity includes numerous factors, one primary factor is support for
creativity (Amabile, 2013).
A large body of literature demonstrates that support for
creativity—“employees' perceptions of the extent to which their

Creat Innov Manag. 2020;29:453–464. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/caim © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 453
454
organization stimulates, respects, rewards, and recognizes creativity”
(De Stobbeleir, Ashford, & Buyens, 2011, p. 817)—directly influences
employees' creative performance (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, &
Herron, 1996; Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; De
Stobbeleir et al., 2011; Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002; Scott &
Bruce, 1994). The extent to which employees believe their supervi-
sors model and explicitly encourage creative behavior is positively
associated with supervisor ratings of employees' creative workplace
behaviors and performance (Madjar et al., 2002; Tierney &
Farmer, 2002). Employee reported organizational support, reflecting a
more general “climate for creativity,” also positively predicts supervi-
sors' ratings of creativity (De Stobbeleir et al., 2011). Thus, support
for creativity in the workplace represents an important factor
influencing the frequency and quality of employees' creative behavior.
However, men and women may not receive equivalent levels
of support for creativity in the workplace (Kwasniewska &
Nȩcka, 2004; Luksyte et al., 2017). Luksyte et al. (2017) found that
employees' self-reported creative behavior was associated with
more positive work evaluation ratings for men, but not women
(Experiment 2). In a subsequent study (Experiment 3), undergradu-
ate business students provided a more positive evaluation for a fic-
titious subordinate who engaged in high (as opposed to low)
creative work behaviors. However, the boost in evaluations for
high creativity was three times larger when the profile was pres-
ented as belonging to a male employee than when the same pro-
file was presented as belonging to a female employee. Given that
the extant creativity literature does not show reliable gender-based
differences on measures of creative potential and ability
(Abraham, 2016; Baer & Kaufman, 2008; Runco et al., 2010), what
explains differences in the support that men and women receive
for creativity?
Explanations for these results have been largely based on role
congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002), and posit that gender bias in
attributions of creativity (i.e., the extent to which creativity is recog-
nized as characteristic of an individual) may arise from a lack of fit
between the characteristics ascribed to women and those ascribed to
creativity (Luksyte et al., 2017; Proudfoot et al., 2015). Because the
characteristics typically associated with creativity are more stereotypi-
cally masculine (e.g., decisive, competitive, and self-reliant), men may
be perceived as more creative than women regardless of actual crea-
tive ability or production (Luksyte et al., 2017; Proudfoot et al., 2015).
Studies have found that both men and women attribute greater crea-
tivity to men and rate the same products as more creative when it is
suggested that the creator is a man (as opposed to a woman; Luksyte
et al., 2017; Proudfoot et al., 2015). For instance, participants who
were shown photographs of either men or women and asked to indi-
cate their first impressions of them rated men as being more creative
and innovative than women, even when controlling for other factors
(e.g., competence, attractiveness, and likeability; Luksyte et al., 2017).
Thus, women may receive less support for creativity in the workplace
due to gender bias, stemming from a lack of fit between the charac-
teristics of creativity and gender role expectations for women.
TAYLOR ET AL.
However, there is evidence that gender differences in attributions
and support for creativity may be attenuated in certain industries or
occupations. Studies examining gender bias in attributions of creativ-
ity have demonstrated that effects are attenuated or even reversed in
stereotypically feminine domains (e.g., fashion or poetry-writing;
Kaufman, Baer, Agars, & Loomis, 2010; Proudfoot et al., 2015). For
example, Proudfoot et al. (2015) found that architectural designs were
rated as more creative when participants were led to believe they
were designed by a male architect. Yet, no such difference emerged
for ratings of fashion designs. Occupational roles may also influence
gender-based differences in support for creativity. In one study, man-
agers rated female scientists and engineers who were perceived as
innovative as more promotable than male scientists who received sim-
ilar innovation ratings (Post, DiTomaso, Lowe, Farris, & Cordero, 2009).
Luksyte et al. (2017) suggested that women who engage in creative
behavior in positions in which it is a core requirement may not violate
gender expectations because creativity is not inconsistent with their job
role. Thus, these findings are also consistent with role-congruity theory,
as women's creativity in female-typed domains or in roles in which crea-
tivity is explicitly required may not violate gender-based expectations.
However, the role of occupational creativity demands or employment in
stereotypically gendered industries in support for workplace creativity
has never been directly tested.
1.1 | Summary and hypotheses
The extant literature suggests that organizational support for creativ-
ity is positively associated with the frequency and quality of creative
behavior in the workplace (Amabile et al., 1996, 2004; De Stobbeleir
et al., 2011; Scott & Bruce, 1994). A relatively smaller, emerging litera-
ture suggests that men receive greater support for creativity in the
workplace than women (Kwasniewska & Nȩcka, 2004; Luksyte
et al., 2017; for a counterexample see Post et al., 2009). However, no
previous studies have tested support for creativity as an explanatory
factor for gender differences in creative workplace behaviors. Previ-
ous studies have also relied mainly on online convenience samples
(such as MTurk workers) or business school students. We extend the
emerging literature on gender differences in support for creativity by
directly testing if support explains gender differences in creative
workplace behavior, using a large sample of adults employed across a
range of industries. We expect that:
Hypothesis 1. Gender will influence support for creativity, such that
men will report greater support for creativity than women.
Hypothesis 2. Gender will influence creative workplace behaviors, such
that men will report a greater frequency of creative behaviors than
women.
Hypothesis 3. Support for creativity will mediate the effect of gender
on the frequency of creative workplace behaviors.
TAYLOR ET AL.
Drawing on role-congruity theory, several scholars have
suggested that the gender-typing of an industry and/or the level of
creativity required in an occupation may influence gender discrepan-
cies in support for creativity (Luksyte et al., 2017; Proudfoot
et al., 2015). For instance, women's creative behavior in feminine-
typed domains (i.e., domains that are stereotypically considered to be
more suited to women) does not violate gender-based expectations
(e.g., Proudfoot et al., 2015). Thus, women employed in these domains
may not experience diminished levels of support for creativity. The
gender-typing of employment arises, in part, due to the gender of the
typical employee and can be predicted by the distribution of male and
female employees (Cejka & Eagly, 1999). Therefore, differences
between men and women in support for creativity and creative
behaviors may be attenuated in industries that employ a larger pro-
portion of women. Additionally, women's creativity in occupations in
which creativity is a core requirement does not violate gender-based
expectations (e.g., Luksyte et al., 2017). Therefore, men and women
may receive more similar levels of support for creativity and engage in
more similar levels of creative behavior in positions that require
greater creativity (Luksyte et al., 2017). Although the role of these
two context-related factors has been proposed in previous studies
(e.g., Luksyte et al., 2017; Proudfoot et al., 2015), they have never
been directly tested across a wide range of industries and occupa-
tions. Using data collected from a large, nationwide sample of workers
across industries in the US, we test these factors as potential modera-
tors of the mediated effect of gender on creative workplace
behaviors:
Hypothesis 4. The proportion of women employed in an industry will
moderate the effect of gender on creative behavior through crea-
tivity support. Specifically, the gender discrepancy in both support
for creativity and creative behavior will be reduced at higher levels
of women in the industry.
Hypothesis 5. Occupational creativity requirements will moderate the
effect of gender on creative behavior through creativity support.
Specifically, the gender discrepancy in both support for creativity
and creative behavior will be reduced at higher levels of occupa-
tional creativity requirements.
2 | METHOD
2.1 | Participants
Qualtrics Panels were used to recruit 20,000 participants demographi-
cally representative of the US workforce (according to the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016) in terms of age (over 18 years),
gender, ethnicity, industry, and geographical region. Data were
excluded from analyses if participants failed two or more (out of 13)
attention checks (N = 5,355), did not indicate male or female gender
(N = 27), or did not complete the relevant outcome measures (N = 28).
455
The final sample included 14,590 US workers (Male = 50.7%,
Female = 49.3%), over the age of 18 (M = 40.80, SD = 14.10). Ethnicity
was distributed as follows (with 9.8% indicating Hispanic/Latino ori-
gin): 82.7% White/Caucasian, 9.4% Black/African American, 4.2%
Asian/Asian American, 1.6% American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.3%
Pacific Islander, and 4.6% multiracial or other. All industry categories,
based on the US Department of Labor and North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) information, were represented. Partici-
pants were compensated monetarily for their participation. Detailed
demographic information for the sample after removing those who
failed two or more attention checks is available in the supplementary
materials.
2.2 | Materials
Items and statistical properties for all measured variables are reported
in Table 1.
2.2.1 | Creativity support
Existing scales of creativity support are either proprietary (e.g., the
KEYS; Amabile, 1995) or were created to assess employees within a
single organization (e.g., Zhou & George, 2001). Therefore, we created
a short scale that could be used across the entire range of industries
to assess employees in different organizations. Participants were
asked to indicate how often they have four experiences indicative of
workplace support for creativity (e.g., “I am encouraged to develop and
suggest my own original ideas and solutions”), on a 6-point scale from
1 (Never/Almost never) to 6 (Always/Almost always). The items dem-
onstrated strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .89) and
were averaged to create a total creativity support score.1
2.2.2 | Creative work behavior
Participants were asked to indicate how many times in the previous
six months they engaged in five creative/innovative work behaviors
(adapted from Zhou & George, 2001; e.g., “contributed original ways to
achieve goals”), on a 5-point scale from none to four or more. The
items demonstrated strong internal consistency (Cronbach's
alpha = .92) and were averaged to create a total creative behavior
score.
2.2.3 | Occupational creativity requirements
The level of creative thinking required by a participant's occupation
was obtained from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET;
Peterson, Mumford, Borman, Jeanneret, & Fleishman, 1999). O*NET
is a comprehensive online database, which provides quantified infor-
mation for occupations in many different categories. Our survey asked
456 TAYLOR ET AL.

TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics for scales and items

Items N M SD Min-Max Skewness Kurtosis

Creativity support 14,590 3.56 1.37 1–6 −.02 (.02) −.95 (.04)
Creativity is encouraged and rewarded 14,554 3.60 1.63 1–6 .02 (.02) −1.12 (.01)
There are opportunities to suggest a new product or project 14,564 3.56 1.60 1–6 .00 (.02) −1.09 (.04)
(e.g., suggestion boxes)
Original suggestions from employees are often implemented 14,567 3.34 1.41 1–6 .20 (.02) −.74 (.01)
I am encouraged to develop and suggest my own original 14,564 3.75 1.62 1–6 −.13 (.02) −1.13 (.04)
ideas and solutions
Creative behavior 14,590 1.90 1.24 0–4 .10 (.02) −1.10 (.04)
Suggested new ideas in meetings/work teams 14,548 1.93 1.43 0–4 .06 (.02) −1.29 (.04)
Contributed original ways to achieve goals 14,533 2.00 1.41 0–4 .00 (.02) −1.25 (.04)
Given an idea for a new project 14,530 1.72 1.44 0–4 .25 (.02) −1.27 (.04)
Significantly contributed to a creative project at work (e.g., 14,553 1.86 1.48 0–4 .13 (.02) −1.36 (.04)
new product/project development)
Come up with new ideas to improve efficiency without 14,545 1.99 1.40 0–4 .03 (.02) −1.24 (.04)
being explicitly asked
Women employed in industry 10.317 48.95 19.13 9.10–78.70 −.19 (.02) −.51 (.05)
Occupational creativity requirements 9,500 53.06 15.38 17–93 .05 (.03) −.55 (.05)

Note. Standard errors in parentheses.

participants to choose their occupation from a series of drop-down 2.3 | Procedure

list menus that increased in specificity until a participant's occupation,
corresponding to an O*NET code, was recorded. Values for the level
of creative thinking required in an occupation (i.e., “Developing, design-
ing, or creating new applications, ideas, relationships, systems, or prod-
ucts, including artistic contributions”; onetonline.org) provided by
O*NET range from 1 (lowest) to 100 (highest). For example, occupa-
tions included in the current study with a high level of occupational
creativity requirements include choreographers and fashion designers.
In contrast, occupations with a low level of occupational creativity
requirements include medical transcriptionists and baristas. Values are
determined by surveying randomly selected workers in each occupation
and are updated annually (https://www.onetcenter.org/dataCollection.
html). Some participants did not complete the entire process of reporting
their occupation (e.g., indicating “management” and skipping the
remaining list menus). Therefore, this value was recorded as missing for
these participants (N = 5,090), as it was not possible to match their occu-
pation to an O*Net code.
2.2.4 | Proportion of gender in industry
The proportion of women employed across industries2 was obtained
from the Current Population Survey, provided by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (bls.gov). Although the survey is conducted monthly, the
annual average for the year in which the data was collected (2016)
was used in the current study. Data for participants who did not
report an industry (N = 2,474) or who reported “other” (N = 1,799)
were excluded from analyses using this variable.
Participants completed a survey online using Qualtrics software. The
survey assessed a wide range of occupational and personal character-
istics, many of which are not addressed in the current study.
3 | RESULTS
Bivariate correlations among the variables may be seen in Table 2. The
level of creativity required for a position exhibited small, yet signifi-
cant, positive correlations with both creativity support (r = .24,
p < .01) and behavior (r = .22, p < .01). Support for creativity was sig-
nificantly and moderately positively correlated with creative behavior
(r = .46, p < .01). Correlations between the proportion of women
employed in an industry and the creativity-related variables were neg-
ligible (r ≤ ± .10) and are therefore not interpreted.
The PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2018) was used to test all
hypothesized models. Moderated mediation (i.e., conditional process)
models can be used to determine if the direct and/or indirect effects
of gender on creative behavior are conditional on a moderator (occu-
pational creativity requirements or proportion of women employed in
an industry). The hypothesized conceptual model relevant to both of
these moderators may be seen in Figure 1. In the models, the esti-
mated coefficients for gender are conditioned on the level of occupa-
tional creativity requirements (or proportion of women in an industry)
equal to zero. The coefficients for each moderator are conditioned on
gender (i.e., they estimate the effect of occupational creativity
requirements or proportion of women employed in an industry on the
TAYLOR ET AL.
TABLE 2 Correlations among constructs
1 2
1. Creativity support —
2. Creative behavior .46**
3. Percent women in industry −.10 **
4. Occupation creative requirements .24**
5. Gender −.09 **
N 14,590
**
p < .01.
F I G U R E 1 Conceptual diagram of the two hypothesized
conditional process models, wherein one model includes the percent
of women employed in an industry as the moderator and one model
includes the level of occupational creativity requirements as the
moderator
outcomes for men). As such, it is important to note that they are not
akin to main effects. Additionally, PROCESS employs listwise deletion
for cases with missing values, which reduces the sample for analyses
including variables added to the dataset from external sources
(i.e., the proportion of female employees in an industry and level of
creativity required in an occupation).
Therefore, a simple mediation was conducted to test our first
three hypotheses, using the full sample (N = 14,590). As seen in
Figure 2, our first two hypotheses were supported, as men reported
both greater support for creativity in the workplace than women,
b = −.24, SE = .02, t = −10.77, p < .001, 95% CI [−.29, −.20], and more
frequent creative workplace behaviors than women (controlling for
support), b = −.15, SE = .02, t = −8.31, p < .001, 95% CI [−.19, −.12].
Further, respondents who reported greater support for workplace cre-
ativity reported more frequent creative workplace behaviors (controlling
F I G U R E 2 Simple mediation model of the
influence of gender (with men coded as 1 and
women coded as 2) on the frequency of creative
workplace behaviors through perceived support
for creativity. All coefficients are significant at
p < .001
457
3 4 5
—
−.09** —
.22** .02 —
−.10 **
.33 **
−.14** —
14,590 10,317 9,500 14,590
for gender), b = .41, SE = .01, t = 61.39, p < .001, 95% CI [.40, .43].
Supporting our third hypothesis, the indirect effect of gender (X) on crea-
tive workplace behavior (Y) through support for creativity (M) was signifi-
cantly different from zero, according to the 95% confidence interval
(based on 5,000 bootstrapped samples), b = −.10, 95% CI [−.12 to −.08].
Our fourth hypothesis, that the effect of gender on creative behav-
ior through creativity support would differ depending on the proportion
of women employed in a participant's industry, was tested using a condi-
tional process model (Table 3). The model (N = 10,317) demonstrated
that gender (X) influences creative workplace behavior (Y) through sup-
port for creativity (M), as a function of the proportion of women
employed in the industry (W). The moderated mediation index was signif-
icant, as the 95% confidence intervals based on 5,000 bootstrapped sam-
ples did not encompass zero (index = .002, 95% CI = .0004–.0028). The
Johnson–Neyman technique revealed that the effect of gender on both
support for creativity and creative behavior became progressively wea-
ker as the proportion of women employed in an industry increases. Men
reported greater support for creativity and creative behavior than
women in all cases. However, the difference in support for creativity was
significant in industries that employ less than 76.23% women (Figure 3),
and the difference for creative behavior was significant in industries that
employ less than 72.46% women (Figure 4). The only industry represen-
ted in the current sample corresponding with a proportion of female
employees greater than 72.46 was healthcare and social assistance
(N = 1,437). As seen in Figure 5, both men and women reported less sup-
port for creativity as the proportion of female employees increased.
However, because the slope for men appears much steeper than that for
women, gender differences appear to become smaller as the proportion
of women in an industry increases primarily due to men reporting less
creative support and behavior.
458 TAYLOR ET AL.

TABLE 3 Model coefficients for model with percent of females in industry as moderator

Consequent

M (Creativity support) Y (Creative behavior)

Antecedent Coeff. SE p 95% CI Coeff. SE p 95% CI

X (Gender) −.38 .08 < .01 −.53, −.23 −.25 .06 < .01 −.37, −.12
M (CreatSupp) — — — — .42 .01 < .01 .40, .43
W (%Fem) −.01 .002 < .01 −.02, −.01 −.01 .002 < .05 −.001, −.002
Gender × %Fem .004 .002 < .05 .001, .007 .003 .001 < .05 .0001, .005
Constant 4.40 .11 < .01 4.18, 4.62 .86 .10 < .01 .67, 1.06
R2 = .02 R2 = .22
F(3, 10,313) = 52.51, p < .01 F(4, 10,312) = 728.21, p < .01

Note. The coefficients for gender are conditioned on the percent of women in an industry equal to zero, whereas the coefficients for percent of women in
an industry are conditioned on gender (i.e., they estimate the effect of percent of women in an industry on the outcomes for men).

F I G U R E 3 The conditional effect of gender on support for
creativity as a function of the proportion of women employed in an
industry. Negative point estimates (i.e., estimated effect sizes)
represent men reporting greater support for creativity than women.
The difference between support reported by men and women
becomes non-significant (i.e., the confidence interval encompasses
zero) for industries in which women represent 76.23% of employees
F I G U R E 4 The conditional effect of gender on the frequency of
creative workplace behaviors as a function of the proportion of
women employed in an industry. Negative point estimates
(i.e., estimated effect sizes) represent men reporting engaging in more
frequent creative behavior than women. The difference in reported
creative behavior between men and women becomes non-significant
(i.e., the confidence interval encompasses zero) for industries in which
women represent 72.46% of employees

4 | DISCUSSION

A conditional process model was also used to test our fifth
hypothesis, that the effect of gender on creative behavior through
creativity support would differ depending on a participant's level of
occupational creativity requirements (Table 4). However, the model
(N = 9,500) did not support that the influence of gender (X) on crea-
tive workplace behavior (Y) through support for creativity (M) is a
function of occupational creativity requirements (W). The confidence
intervals around the moderated mediation index encompassed zero
(index = .0003, 95% CI = −.002–.001).
The current study was conducted to determine (1) if there are gender-
based discrepancies in workplace support for creativity for men and
women, (2) if this discrepancy in support explains differences in crea-
tive workplace behavior, and (3) if these differences vary with occupa-
tional creativity demands and/or gender distribution within an
industry. The results demonstrate that men report more frequent cre-
ative behaviors in the workplace than women, in part due to greater
support for creativity for men. Moreover, this effect is strongest in
industries that employ the smallest proportion of women and
TAYLOR ET AL.
F I G U R E 5 Visual representation of the moderation between
gender and support for creativity (top) and frequency of creative
behavior (bottom) by proportion of women employed in an industry,
created by plotting the means at the PROCESS default 16th, 50th,
and 84th percentiles
becomes progressively weaker as the proportion of women employed
in an industry increases. As seen in Figure 5, this appears to be due to
men reporting less creative behavior as the proportion of female
employees increases, rather than women reporting more. In contrast,
the effect was not influenced by the level of creativity required in an
occupation, contradicting Luksyte et al.’s (2017) assertion that gender
discrepancies in support for creativity are attenuated in occupations
that require greater creativity.3 These results suggest that gender dis-
crepancies in creative behavior in the workplace are attributable
(at least in part) to discrepancies in the support men and women
receive for creativity at work and that this effect differs based on the
proportion of female employees.
459
Differences in the frequency of creative behavior between men
and women becoming smaller as the proportion of women employed
in an industry became larger demonstrates that contextual factors in
the work environment are likely responsible for the effect of gender
on creative behavior (both directly and through support for creativity).
However, the size of the effect waned not as a result of women
engaging in more creativity, but because men reported less creative
support and behavior as the proportion of female employees grew.
This effect aligns with Proudfoot et al.’s (2015) finding that a fictional-
ized architect was rated as significantly more creative when suggested
to be a man than a woman, whereas the rated difference between a
fictionalized male or female fashion designer was not significant.
There too, the result was driven by differences in the perceived crea-
tivity of the male (as opposed to female) architect vs. fashion designer.
There are at least three possible reasons why men's scores
decreased with increases in the proportion of female employees in an
industry. First, industries with a greater proportion of female employees
may inherently require less creative work. However, this seems unlikely,
as the percentage of women employed in an industry was not correlated
with the level of creativity required in an occupation (see Table 2). Sec-
ond, men in female-majority industries may receive relatively less support
for creativity because gender stereotypes about creativity are less likely
to be activated in more feminine gender-typed domains (Kunda &
Spencer, 2003). Without the stereotype of creativity as a masculine char-
acteristic, men may receive less support for creativity, but women would
either receive more support or not be affected. However, both men and
women reported less support for creativity as the proportion of women
in an industry increased (see Figure 5). Third, management in industries
employing more women may demonstrate less support for creative
behavior in response to interacting more frequently with female
employees. Because men and women both display gender bias in attribu-
tions of creativity (Adams, 2015), managers that interact most frequently
with female employees may be less accustomed to considering the crea-
tivity of their employees as a whole, regardless of their own gender. This
may explain why creativity support diminished for both men and women
as the proportion of women increased.
In any case, it is striking that men reported both more creativity sup-
port and creative behavior than women across all industries. The
healthcare and social assistance industry was the only industry with more
than 72.46% female employees, the lowest value at which differences
between men and women were no longer significant. It is possible that
there is something unique to this industry. However, because the effect
size decreased linearly with increases in the proportion of female
employees, it is reasonable to assume that the effect becomes non-
significant at this point due to the relatively higher proportion of women.
Our results suggest that differences in support are only one part
of the puzzle. The direct effect of gender on the frequency of creative
behavior continued to be significant (albeit weakly) after controlling
for support and was also moderated by the proportion of women
employed in an industry. This may be the result of women's internal-
ized beliefs and attitudes regarding creativity, or it may reflect a pat-
tern of conscious decisions. For example, confidence in one's ability
to be creative (i.e., creative self-efficacy) has also been found to differ
460 TAYLOR ET AL.

TABLE 4 Coefficients for model with occupational creativity requirements as moderator

Consequent

M (Creativity support) Y (Creative behavior)

Antecedent Coeff. SE p 95% CI Coeff. SE p 95% CI

X (Gender) −.10 .10 .30 −.29, .09 −.21 .08 < .05 −.37, −.05
M (CreatSupp) — — — — .37 .01 < .01 .35, .39
W (CreatReq) .02 .003 < .01 .02, .03 .01 .002 < .05 .002, .01
Gender × CreatReq −.001 .002 .65 −.004, .003 .002 .002 .19 −.001, .005
Constant 2.58 .16 < .01 2.26, 2.89 .38 .13 < .05 .12, .64
R2 = .06 R2 = .21
F(3, 9,496) = 197.37, p < .01 F(4, 9,495) = 622.86, p < .01

Note. The coefficients for gender are conditioned on the level of occupational creativity requirements equal to zero, whereas the coefficients for level of
occupational creativity requirements are conditioned on gender (i.e., they estimate the effect of occupational creativity requirements on the outcomes for
men).

by gender (Karwowski, 2009, 2011) and positively predicts creative
and innovative behavior (Hsu, Hou, & Fan, 2011; Tierney &
Farmer, 2002). Additionally, if female employees are (either implicitly
or explicitly) aware of gender-based expectations regarding creativity,
they may refrain from engaging in creative behaviors in the workplace
as a form of self-preservation. Past research has demonstrated that
women who violate gender-based behavioral expectations may expe-
rience adverse effects on performance ratings and advancement
(Lyness & Heilman, 2006).
The effect of gender on creative behavior may also reflect occu-
pational segregation—men and women's tendency to be selected, be
hired into, and remain in differing occupations within industries (Baker
& Cornelson, 2018; Cortes & Pan, 2018). Examinations of the gender-
ing of creative roles in the creative and culture industries demonstrate
that women tend to be employed in roles more focused on coordinat-
ing and facilitating production (e.g., accounting) and underrepresented
in creative roles (e.g., creative director; see Hesmondhalgh &
Baker, 2015). However, because most gender inequities happen within
occupations (Goldin, 2014), structural influences on devaluing female-
dominated work are likely more important than sorting into different
job roles within industries.
4.1 | Theoretical implications
The current findings enhance our understanding of creativity in the
workplace, by demonstrating that contextual factors related to gender
play a key role in gender differences in employees' creative behavior.
Previous studies have explored the constructs of creative behavior
and support in isolation, demonstrating either that women engage in
less creative behavior (Luksyte et al., 2017) or that women perceive
less support (Kwasniewska & Nȩcka, 2004). Additionally, exploration
of the role of context has either not been addressed or was limited by
data collected from a small number of organizations, student samples,
or convenience samples recruited online (e.g., MTurk workers). Con-
sistent with the idea that gender differences in creative behavior at
work stem from gender differences in support for creativity, our study
across all industries in the US demonstrated that (1) there are gender
differences in the frequency of creative behavior, (2) these differences
can be explained in part by differences in the amount of support that
men and women receive for such behavior, and (3) the magnitude of
this effect relates to the proportion of male and female employees
within an industry.
Connecting our results with previous research, we propose that
gender bias influences the support for creativity that men and women
experience at work and that this differential support leads to women
engaging in less creative behavior. Consistent with role-congruity the-
ory, women are perceived as less creative than men because traits
associated with creativity are stereotypically masculine (e.g., decisive
and competitive; Proudfoot et al., 2015). This gendered view of crea-
tivity influences the amount of support for creativity that women
receive at work (e.g., financial rewards and acknowledgment; Luksyte
et al., 2017). Our results enable theory building, by adding a missing
piece concerning the consequences of such gendered support.
Women's experience of less support for creativity explains (in part)
their engagement in less creative behavior at work when compared to
men. We further show that the strength of the effect is related to the
proportion of women employed in an industry, which may be viewed
as an indicator of the female-typing of an industry (Cejka &
Eagly, 1999). However, although the magnitude of the difference
between men and women declines with increases in the proportion of
women employed in an industry, this gender-support-behavior rela-
tionship holds true until more than 70% of the employees in an indus-
try are women. The proportion of female employees may represent a
boundary condition of the effect. Because only the healthcare and
social assistance industry fell into this range, more research is needed
to provide information for this or any other boundary conditions.
Our results support previous theories that suggest that gender
differences in creative achievement can be accounted for by socio-
cultural factors (e.g., Simonton, 1992, 1994). Some scholars have
suggested that gender differences in creativity are primarily due to
biological or neuroscientific factors (e.g., Abraham, 2016). However,
TAYLOR ET AL.
we found that gender discrepancies in creative behavior in the work-
place can be explained (in part) by discrepancies in support for creativ-
ity. Although there is likely some combination of biological and social
factors at play, our results align with suggestions that these differ-
ences can be accounted for by greater societal support and encour-
agement for men's (as opposed to women's) creative pursuits
(e.g., Runco et al., 2010; Simonton, 1994). Given evidence that men
and women on average do not differ in creative ability (Baer &
Kaufman, 2008), uncovering the contextual factors that contribute to
differences in men and women's creative behavior contributes to our
understanding of the factors underlying gender differences in creative
achievement.
Our results may also be used to extend existing theories relating
to how the interplay of contextual and individual factors relate to cre-
ativity at work. For example, Amabile's Componential Theory of Crea-
tivity (Amabile, 1983; Amabile & Pratt, 2016) has been influential in
delineating the organizational factors that play a key role in individual
employees' creativity, including supervisory support. However, the
theory does not address the role that macro-level contextual factors
might play in the effect of organizational factors on employees' crea-
tivity. Our results demonstrate that incorporating such macro-level
factors (e.g., the proportion of male and female employees within an
industry) could help establish a more comprehensive understanding of
the relationship between organizational factors and individual
employees' creativity.
4.2 | Limitations and recommendations for further
research
There are several limitations of the current study to be addressed in
future research. In light of recent findings indicating that gender bias
in attributions of creativity influences supervisor ratings (Proudfoot
et al., 2015), and in the absence of resources to measure creativity
objectively, we opted to rely on a self-report measure of the fre-
quency of creative behaviors. Some research suggests that women
tend to underestimate their abilities on self-assessments of creativity
to a greater extent than men (Furnham & Bachtiar, 2008;
Karwowski, 2009, 2011). However, our measure of creative behavior
asked participants to rate how often they engaged in a set of specific
behaviors, rather than the more abstract question of how creative
they believe themselves to be. Thus, the potential influence of gender
differences in self-assessed creative ability may have been somewhat
mitigated. This effect may not have been wholly eliminated because
to report creative behavior, one must recognize the behavior as crea-
tive. Additionally, including only a single measure of creativity limits
how broadly we can apply our conclusions. Women may more fre-
quently engage in creative behaviors that were not included in our
assessment. A related issue is the use of self-report measures to
assess both creative support and creative behavior, which may have
resulted in common method variance. However, a recent simulation
study demonstrated that only very high levels of common method
variance (above 70% for reliable measures) are likely to result in bias
461
and are just as likely to attenuate—as they are to inflate—correlations
(Fuller, Simmering, Atinc, Atinc, & Babin, 2016). Future studies includ-
ing multiple measures of creative performance at work could provide
more compelling evidence or a more nuanced understanding of the
observed effects.
Although conditional process models are conceptualized as causal
models, our use of cross-sectional data limits our conclusions. The role
of support for creativity as the mediator and behavior as the outcome
is not the only possible configuration of the model. The frequency
with which an employee engages in creative behavior may also lead
to greater support for such behavior. Indeed, it is likely that there is a
feedback loop in which support leads to greater creativity, which leads
to greater support. However, the current configuration of the model
makes good theoretical sense, aligning with existing research demon-
strating both that gender bias influences attributions of creativity
(e.g., Proudfoot et al., 2015) and that creativity support influences cre-
ative behavior (e.g., Scott & Bruce, 1994). Longitudinal studies exam-
ining changes in creative behavior over time in relation to differential
support could reinforce the current configuration of the model.
Future research should also be conducted to examine what fac-
tors may be missing from the model. In addition to creative self-
efficacy (discussed above), personality and other individual differences
might moderate the effect of gender on creative behavior through
creativity support. Madjar et al. (2002) found that participants low in
creative personality benefited more from support for creativity (albeit
from outside of the work environment), suggesting that individuals
not predisposed to creativity may benefit more from support. There-
fore, men and women relatively low in creativity-related traits may
exhibit greater differences in creative behavior as a result of men
receiving and benefiting from support for their creativity. Support for
creativity may not influence men and women that are higher on
creativity-related traits to as great an extent. Although our hypothe-
ses are based on findings regarding gender bias in attributions of crea-
tivity, we did not examine the role of gender bias directly. Measuring
the extent to which a participant's coworkers and supervisors adhere
to gender-based stereotypes about creativity (see Proudfoot
et al., 2015) will allow researchers to determine if gender bias is
indeed an antecedent to the model. This and other potential factors
underlying the differences in support for creativity between men and
women should be integrated into future models.
4.3 | Practical implications
Despite these limitations, our results have notable implications for
equitable management practices and enhancing creativity and innova-
tion within organizations. The first step in addressing this issue is mak-
ing managers aware of the potential causes and consequences of
gender-based discrepancies in support for creative workplace behav-
ior. Given that support for creativity positively predicts creative
behavior, companies in industries with relatively fewer female
employees should consider how they can provide women with greater
support to maximize their creative contributions. Organizations may
462
institute practices that explicitly encourage creative suggestions from
all workers. For example, Pixar® instituted a “notes day,” comprised of
facilitated meetings on specific topics, followed by employee submis-
sions of written feedback and proposals of original suggestions
(Catmull & Wallace, 2014). Companies unable to orchestrate such
large-scale events can enact similar, yet more feasible, practices, such
as electronic suggestion boxes. Managers must also play an active role
in demonstrating support, as they more frequently interact with
employees. Unfortunately, anecdotes of men receiving credit for an
idea proposed by a woman in the same meeting have become cliché
for a reason. Being mindful of this and acknowledging when women
speak up in meetings will demonstrate support for their ideas. Addi-
tionally, managers should seek out input from female employees dur-
ing daily interactions to demonstrate that their ideas are valued.
Our results also have important and actionable implications spe-
cifically for female employees, including women in management posi-
tions. Women must be made aware that gender-based discrepancies
in support for creativity influence behavior in ways that can impact
career outcomes, such as evaluation and advancement. Understanding
how a contextual factor such as support influences creative behavior
should increase women's creative self-efficacy, by reinforcing that
diminished creativity at work may be due to external factors and not a
reflection of their actual creative ability. This also highlights how
important it is for women to actively seek support for their creativity.
Such support seeking may include scheduling time with supervisors to
discuss ideas and requesting feedback from a variety of sources,
including supervisors, coworkers, and others in the organization. If
women's immediate supervisors and coworkers are unable or unwill-
ing to respond to their support-seeking behaviors, they may need to
seek support outside of the organization. Support from family and fri-
ends has been shown to positively predict employees' creative behav-
ior in the workplace, independently of support received from
supervisors and coworkers (Madjar et al., 2002). Employees able to
secure support from both sources may doubly benefit.
5 | CO NC LUSIO N
Innovation is vital for the success of most organizations, yet many
may not be capitalizing on the creativity of all employees. Even
though men and women do not differ in their creative ability or
potential (Baer & Kaufman, 2008; Runco, Illies, & Eisenman, 2005),
people tend to attribute greater creativity to men than women
(e.g., Proudfoot et al., 2015). Gender-biased attributions of creativity
may lead to an imbalance in the extent to which the creativity of men
and women is supported in the workplace. The results of the current
study demonstrate that men report greater support for creativity in
the workplace than women, which in turn leads to more frequent cre-
ative workplace behavior. Moreover, the role of the environmental
context in this phenomenon is highlighted, as gender-based differ-
ences in both support and creative behavior became smaller as the
proportion of women in an industry increased. Understanding how
differences in men and women's creative behavior at work are
TAYLOR ET AL.
perpetuated (at least in part) through support for creativity should
encourage organizations to find ways to mitigate these effects. Doing
so would result in greater social equity, reduced opportunity costs,
and greater creativity within organizations.
ACKNOWLEDG MENTS
We would like to thank Arielle White and Ling Dong for their work
during data collection. This research was supported by the Faas
Foundation.
OR CID
Christa Taylor https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6472-3107
Zorana Ivcevic https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0321-2071
Julia Moeller https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5939-8688
ENDNOTES
1
Employees' perceptions of the organizational climate, which are
influenced by both their experiences and their cognitive appraisal of
such experiences, can be measured using self-report and have been pre-
viously shown to predict creative behavior (Amabile et al., 1996;
Kwasniewska & Nȩcka, 2004).
2
Industry-level, rather than occupational-level, values were used because
the industry provides a closer approximation to the concept of the
gender-typed domain in which a person is employed. For example, per-
ceptions of a female manager in the healthcare services industry versus
construction or utilities industries.
3
Of note, Luksyte et al.’s suggestion was in response to how positively
innovative employees were evaluated by their supervisors. It may be
that creative female employees in especially creative occupations are
indeed regarded in a more positive light by their supervisors.
RE FE RE NCE S
Abraham, A. (2016). Gender and creativity: An overview of psychological
and neuroscientific literature. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 10,
609–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-015-9410-8
Accenture. (2013). Skills and Employment Trends Survey: Perspectives on
Training. Key Findings.
Adams, K. (2015). Even women think men are more creative. Harvard Busi-
ness Review. Retrieved from. https://hbr.org/2015/12/even-women-
think-men-are-more-creative
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential
conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
357–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
Amabile, T. M. (1995). KEYS: Assessing the climate for creativity. Greens-
boro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Amabile, T. M. (2013). Componential theory of creativity. In E. H. Kessler
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory (pp. 134–139). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996).
Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of
creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making
meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004).
Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived
leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.003
TAYLOR ET AL.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. Journal
of Creative Behavior, 42, 75–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-
6057.2008.tb01289.x
Baker, M., & Cornelson, K. (2018). Gender based occupational segregation
and sex differences in sensory, motor and spatial aptitudes. Demogra-
phy, 55, 1749–1775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0706-3
Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the unseen
forces that stand in the way of true inspiration. New York: Random
House.
Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupa-
tions correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167299025004002
Cortes, P., & Pan, J. (2018). Occupation and gender. In S. L. Averett,
L. M. Argys, & S. D. Hoffman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of women
and the economy (pp. 425–452). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
De Stobbeleir, K. E. M., Ashford, S. J., & Buyens, D. (2011). Self-regulation
of creativity at work: The role of feedback-seeking behavior in creative
performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 54, 811–831.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.64870144
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice
toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
Forrester Consulting. (2014). The creative dividend: How creativity
impacts business results. Cambridge, MA: Forrester Consulting.
Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016).
Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of
Business Research, 69, 3192–3198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2015.12.008
Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predic-
tors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 613–617.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.023
Goldin, C. (2014). A grand gender convergence: Its last chapter. American
Economic Review, 104, 1091–1119.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Hesmondhalgh, D., & Baker, S. (2015). Sex, gender and work segregation
in the cultural industries. The Sociological Review, 63, 23–36. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12238
Hsu, M. L. A., Hou, S. T., & Fan, H. L. (2011). Creative self-efficacy and
innovative behavior in a service setting: Optimism as a moderator.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 45, 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.
2162-6057.2011.tb01430.x
IBM. (2010). IBM 2010 global CEO study: Creativity selected as most cru-
cial factor for future success. Retrieved from https://www03.ibm.
com/press/us/en/pressrelease/31670.wss
Karwowski, M. (2009). I'm creative, but am I Creative? Similarities and dif-
ferences between self-evaluated small and Big-C creativity in Poland.
The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 19(2), 7–26.
Karwowski, M. (2011). It doesn't hurt to ask … But sometimes it hurts to
believe: Polish students' creative self-efficacy and its predictors. Psy-
chology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 154–164. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0021427
Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Agars, M. D., & Loomis, D. (2010). Creativity ste-
reotypes and the consensual assessment technique. Creativity
Research Journal, 22, 200–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.
2010.481529
Kunda, Z., & Spencer, S. J. (2003). When do stereotypes come to mind and
when do they color judgment? A goal-based theoretical framework for
stereotype activation and application. Psychological Bulletin, 129,
522–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.522
Kwasniewska, J., & Nȩcka, E. (2004). Perception of the climate for creativ-
ity in the workplace: The role of the level in the organization and
463
gender. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13, 187–196. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-1690.2004.00308.x
Luksyte, A., Unsworth, K. L., & Avery, D. R. (2017). Innovative work behav-
ior and sex-based stereotypes: Examining sex differences in percep-
tions and evaluations of innovative work behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 39, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2219
Lyness, K. S., & Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Perfor-
mance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male
managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 777–785. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.777
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There's no place like
home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to
employees' creative performance. The Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 45, 757–767. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069309
Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret, P. R., &
Fleishman, E. A. (Eds.) (1999). An occupational information system for
the 21st century: The development of O*NET. Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association.
Post, C., DiTomaso, N., Lowe, S. R., Farris, G. F., & Cordero, R. (2009). A
few good women. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 348–371.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940910952723
Proudfoot, D., Kay, A. C., & Koval, C. Z. (2015). A gender bias in the attri-
bution of creativity: Archival and experimental evidence for the per-
ceived association between masculinity and creative thinking.
Psychological Science, 26, 1751–1761. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0956797615598739
Runco, M. A., Cramond, B., & Pagnani, A. R. (2010). Gender and creativity.
In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in
psychology (pp. 343–357). New York, NY: Springer.
Runco, M. A., Illies, J. J., & Eisenman, R. (2005). Creativity, originality, and
appropriateness: What do explicit instructions tell us about their rela-
tionships? Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 137–148. https://doi.org/
10.1002/j.2162-6057.2005.tb01255.x
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A
path model of individual innovation in the workplace. The Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 580–607. https://doi.org/10.2307/256701
Simonton, D. K. (1992). Gender and genius in Japan: Feminine eminence in
masculine culture. Sex Roles, 27, 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00290012
Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential
antecedents and relationship to creative performance. The Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.2307/
3069429
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018). Employed persons by industry, sex,
race, and occupation. https://www.bls.gov/cps/aa2018/cpsaat17.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016). Employed persons by industry, sex,
race, and occupation. https://www.bls.gov/cps/aa2016/cpsaat17.htm
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (2013). Toward a theory of
organizational creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 18,
293–321. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1993.3997517
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativ-
ity: Encouraging the expression of voice. The Academy of Management
Journal, 44(4), 682–696. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069410
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Christa Taylor, PhD is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the
Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence. Her research focuses on
how self-regulation and motivation influences creativity and
achievement, and how emotions and mood influence behavior.
464 TAYLOR ET AL.

Zorana Ivcevic, PhD, is a Research Scientist at the Yale Center for impact of EI training on student and educator effectiveness and
Emotional Intelligence. Her research interests center around the school climate.
role of emotion and self-regulation in creativity and innovation.

Julia Moeller, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the

University of Leipzig, Germany. She studies learning-related emo-
SUPPORTING INF ORMATION
tions and motivation, and is interested in the dark side of motiva-
Additional supporting information may be found online in the
tion (co-occurring stress and exhaustion), and the bright side of
Supporting Information section at the end of this article.
negative emotions (co-occurring positive feelings).

Marc Brackett, PhD, is founding director of the Yale Center for

How to cite this article: Taylor C, Ivcevic Z, Moeller J,
Emotional Intelligence and Professor in the Child Study Center at
Brackett M. Gender and support for creativity at work. Creat
Yale University. His research focuses on: the role of EI in learning,
Innov Manag. 2020;29:453–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/
decision making, creativity, relationships, and health, and the
caim.12397