An Empirical Study on the Effects of Creative Personality and Job Autonomy on Individual Innovation Performance of Knowledge Workers

[a] School of Public Affairs， University of Science and Technology of China， No. 96， Jinzhai Road， 230026 Hefei， China.

*Corresponding author.

Received 9 March 2013； accepted 30 April 2013

Abstract

Knowledge workers or “the creative class” are viewed as core to the competitiveness of a firm in a knowledgebased economy. The present study examines the effect of job autonomy onthe creativity of knowledge workers， compared with the effects of creativepersonality.With the help of the moderated multiple regression modeling and based on the 267 samples， this paper studies the crucial influencing factors that affect individual innovative performance and how the job autonomy moderate the creativie personalitys and hope to do some contributions to the improvement of the individual innovative performance in Sci-Tech SMEs.

Key words： Creative personality； Job autonomy； Knowledge workers； Individual innovation performance； Moderated

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge workers， or “the creative class” （Florida， 2005），are viewed as core to the competitiveness of a firm in a knowledge-based economy （Lepak Snell， 2002； Hirst et al.， 2009）. During modern creative activities， knowledge workers， the main actors of innovation， dissemination and application of knowledge， are the vital source of renewing products， services and creative processes in an organization （Amabile， 1988）. A basic task of human resource management is to enhance creative individuals and then to strengthen the organization’s innovation capacity and increase market competition advantages（Amabile， 1988， 1996； Oldham Cummings， 1996； Zhou Oldham， 2001； Hirst et al.， 2009； Dul et al.， 2011）.

As employee creativity is crucial for organizationalinnovation and survival （Amabile， 1988， 1996； Oldham Cummings， 1996）， managers and scholars alikehave sought to identify the ingredients that foster individual creativity （Breaugh， 1985； Amabile， 1988； Wolfe， 1994； Oldham Cummings， 1996； George Zhou， 2001； Dul et al.， 2011； Song et al.， 2012）. From the perspective of individual innovation， researchers study characteristics of individual innovation， including factors of individual innovation performance， how to select and cultivate creative workers， and realization mechanism of individual innovation performance （Oldham Cummings， 1996； Mumford， 2000； Dul et al.， 2011）. A number of studies have indicated that an employee’s creative performancedepends partly on individualcharacteristics， such asdomain-relevant knowledge， cognitive style （e.g.， divergentthinking）， and personality traits （Gough， 1979； Barron Harrington， 1981； Feist， 1999； Mumford， 2000）. To build toward a comprehensiveunderstanding of the knowledge workers’creative personality on innovation performance is limited.

From the organizational point of view， the design of jobs has long been considered an importantcontributor to employees’ creative performance atwork （Hackman Oldham， 1975； Amabile， 1988， 1996； Mumford， 2000）. Specifically， the importance of autonomy as an organizational variable has been asserted by numerous writers （Feist， 1999； Mumford， 2000； Dul et al.， 2011）. According to knowledge creation theory （NonakaToyama， 2004）， the level of autonomy in the workplace could determine the quality and frequency of innovative thinking and creative challenges， which would ultimately be the cornerstone of organizational innovation in both levels of process and product. The level of taskrelated jobautonomy is one of the determinants for knowledge workers’ innovation performance and even for organizationallong-term success.

Nowadays， China is engaged in being an innovative country， which indicates the significance of research on innovation performance of knowledge workers. This paper combines the two aspects of individual innovation and organization that both play an important role in individual innovation performance to examine how the organizational environment adjusts the individual innovation， with the aim of offering suggests of improving knowledge workers’ creativity.

1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

Creativity， as expressed and brought to life through organizations， plays a sinificant role in society （Amabile， 1988， 1996； Oldham Cummings， 1996； George Zhou， 2001； WANG CHENG， 2010）. Knowledge workers， proposed by Peter Drucker （1999）， are workers who work primarily with information or one who develops and uses knowledge in the workplace. As the dependence is transformed from natural resources to knowledge resources， knowledge workers become more essential in the knowledge-based economy. Knowledge workers are the source of original and potentially useful ideas and solutions for a firm’s renewal of products， service， and processes （Amabile， 1988； George Zhou， 2001； McLean， 2005）. As noted earlier， a large body of literature has focused on determininga set of personal characteristics and attributes associated with creativeachievement（Barron Harrington， 1981； Martindale， 1989； Oldham Cummings， 1996； Davis， 2009）， and demostrared ted that a stable set of core personal characteristics， including broad interests， attractionto complexity， intuition， aesthetic sensitivity， toleration of ambiguity，and self-confidence， relate positively and consistently to measures of creativeperformance across a variety of domains （Gough， 1979； Barron Harrington， 1981； Martindale， 1989； Janssen Yperen， 2004； McLean， 2005）. Meanwhile， people’s creativity dependsnot only on their personalcharacteristics， but on theirwork environment （Woodman et al.， 1993； Amabile， 1996； George Zhou， 2001）. Several case and empirical studies show that task-related job autonomy provide workrelated emotionalencouragement， which leads to more engagement of employees （Morgeson et al.， 2005； Wang Cheng， 2010）. With regard to the importance of knowledge worker’s creativity on the organization performance， as well as the current research deficiency on the interaction of these two levels， a multi-level study is in need.

1.1 Creative Personality

An employee’s creative performance partly depends on his/her characteristics， such as domain-relevant knowledge， cognitive style （e.g.， divergent thinking）， and personality traits. Several theoretical perspectives suggest that to fully understand creativity， it is necessary to consider individuals’ personality （Woodman et al.， 1993； Amabile， 1996）.Numerous studies relate an individual’s personality traits such as self-confidence， ambiguity and broad interests to creativity （Gough， 1979； Barron Harrington， 1981； Feist， 1999）.For example， a confident worker with broad interests is likely to approach problems without senses of hesitation or failures， and then recognize various information to come up with novel ideas（Barron Harrington， 1981； Martindale， 1989）. Thus， individuals with creative personalities show higher creativity than individuals whose personalities are not creative.

Many scholars have developed measures in order to attempt to assess these personal characteristics reliably. One of the most widely used and respected of these measures is Gough’s Creative Personality Scale （CPS）（Gough， 1979）.Based on Adjective Check List （ACL）， Gough （1979） explored the original CPS， which is a list containing 18 adjectives positively related to creativity and 12negatively related to creativity. As a formative index， CPS is considered a reliable and valid measure of creative personality （Oldham Cummings， 1996； Batey Furnham， 2008）. To simplify data collection， most research adapt a common within of less adjectives by a selection （Unsworth et al.， 2000； Madjar et al.， 2002； Zhou， 2003）.

As the main role of innovation activities， knowledge workers with creative personality could conduct original tasks and look for new experiences to generate creative thoughts， which is useful to enhance creative performance. Unfortunately， few previous empirical studies have taken simultaneously the effects of creative personality into consideration to assess knowledge workers’ innovation performance.

1.2 Job Autonomy

Much of the contemporary research concern with the effects of organizational conditions and practices on creativity （Amabile， 1979； Amabile et al.， 1986； Zhou， 1998）. For example， Amabile （1998） emphasised on the importance of how to promote employees’ intrinsic motivation during innovation activities and explored the stimulating effect of organizational supports on individual creativity. Further， task-related job autonomy would be critical for the innovation process and activities （Hackman Oldham， 1975； Wang Cheng， 2010； Song et al.， 2012）.

Job autonomy refers to the employees’ self-rule and independence in conducting their tasks in terms of process， decision making， and time management（Hackman Oldham， 1976， 1980）.According to the social exchange theory （Bateman Organ， 1983）， taskrelated job autonomy provide work-related emotional encouragement， which leads to more engagement of employees （Morgeson et al.， 2005； Wang Cheng， 2010）. For the reason that most knowledge workers engage in creative work with higher independence and strong selfmotivations， they are prone to ask for the requirements of job autonomy strongly （Hackman Oldham， 1975； Beehr Drexler， 1986； Man Lam， 2003； Wang Cheng， 2010）. These characteristics embedded in knowledge workers suggest organizations to focus on job autonomy which can maximize the effective practices of new concept development and innovation （Vicari Troilo， 2000） in order to contribute to creative performance of knowledge workers. In contrast， when supervisors are controlling， the reduction in employees’ intrinsic motivation is then expected to stifle individuals’ creativity combining with lower creative performance （Oldham Cummings， 1996）. An empirical study， therefore， aiming at investigating the job autonomy to explain the knowledge workers’ creativity is of significance.

As an essential part of organizational climate， job autonomy， including process autonomy， work and content selection autonomy， and decision-making autonomy， can not only impose a direct effect on individuals’ innovation performance， but also play mediating and moderating roles in ensuring psychological safety and emotional encouragement for team/group members， initiating more creative activities in the workplace （Dunbar， 1995， 1997； West， 2003； Song et al.， 2012）. Consequently， it is necessary to consider the variable of job autonomy into the research of knowledge workers’ creative performance.

1.3 Individual Innovation Performance

Innovativeness is the most important forwardlooking predictor of an individual’s creativity， and organizational innovation and survival can be benefited by recruiting and selecting creative talents. Appropriate measures of innovation performance should provide the right indicators （Birchall et al.， 2004）， and innovation performance of individuals must capture the right factors and relate workers’innovative activities to their success in workplace.

Researchers define performance differently for their diverse study areas. Stoma （1980） defined performance as the degree of achievement of organizational objectives， and Morhman （1989） reported that performance is the final results of taking some actions to realize achievements in a certain degree.

The innovative performance has been studied quite extensively and for a long period of time （Hagedoorn Cloodt， 2003）. According to Amabile （1988）， innovation performance consists of products， concepts and processes with features of novelty and originality， to meet the organizational developments； and Oldham and Cummings（1996） made a re-interpretation of innovation performance emphasising on products or creative ideas that reflect the different individual levels， i.e. their rate of introduction of new products， new process systems or new devices. We consider creative performance to be the production of ideas， products or procedures that are novel or original and potentially useful or practical （Amabile， 1996； Sternberg Lubart， 1996）.

1.4 Summary of Literature Review

The literature review above reveals that creativity is the cornerstone for organizational performance improvement through knowledge workers’ creation practices. Knowledge workers’ innovation performance， the basis for the organizational long-term creativity and change process， could be influenced by their creative personality and job-autonomy in the workplace.

2. CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

The study will integrate the two aspects of individual’s and organization’s factors， because both play an important role in individual innovation performance， and integrate them into a multilevel theoretical framework. In this way， it can be examined how the organizational environment adjusts the individual innovation， with the aim of providing practical suggestions on improving knowledge workers’ creativity. The independent variables are creative personality and job autonomy， and the dependent variable is knowledge workers’ innovation performance. Based on the above， the following Figure 1 shows a conceptual model that visualizes the constructs and relationships of the research. The model’s unit of analysis is the individual knowledge worker.

2.1 Impact of Creative Personality on Individual Innovation Performance

Several studies provide general support for the argument that individuals with more creative personalities exhibit higher creativity than individuals with less creative personalities （Feist， 1999； Madjar et al.， 2002； Oldham Cummings， 1996；Unsworth， Brown， McGuire， 2000； Zhou， 2003）. With creative personality， knowledge workers have a wide range of interests， firm belief and self-confidence which enable them to have keen insight into the new information， and to find a new way to solve problems. In light of the arguments above， we propose the following direct relationship between knowledge workers’creative personality and creative performance：

Hypothesis 1： The higher a knowledge worker’s creative personality， the higher his/her creative performance.

2.2 Impact of Job Autonomy on Individual Innovation Performance

Along with many research， task-related job autonomy plays acritical role in increasing the level of innovation practices （Breaugh， 1985； Song et al.， 2012）. In turn， this would promote organizational long-term success （Beehr Drexler， 1986； Man Lam， 2003； Wang Cheng， 2010）. Increased autonomy will allow employees more chances for creation with a more flexible work process for conducting tasks through the task-related responsibility to define their roles and process to perform the tasks （Troyer et al.，2000； Song et al.， 2012）.On the basis of the above arguments， we formulate the following relationship on the effect of the job autonomy on creativity：

Hypothesis 2： The higher a knowledge worker’s job autonomy， the higher his/her creative performance.

2.3 Moderated Effect of Job Autonomy on Individual Creative Performance

Effects on individual innovation performance aside， taskrelated job autonomy can guide the relation between creative personality and creativity performance， which is moderated effect. Woodman et al. （1993） propose that organizational environment pose an interaction effect in empirical studies， whereas only few empirical studies concentrate on interactions between creative personality and the organizational climate （Oldham Cummings， 1996； George Zhou， 2001； Madjar et al.， 2002； Zhou， 2003）.For example， Song et al. （2012） propose that taskrelated job autonomy was evaluated as a moderating construct to explain the creativity in the school context. However， it is still an untouched area that job autonomy has a moderated effect between creative personality and knowledge workers’ innovation performance. We formulate the following hypotheses on interaction effects：

Hypothesis 3： The effect of creative personality on creative performance depends on job autonomy， such that a high creative personality benefits more from a higher level of job autonomy than a low creative personality.

3. METHOD

3.1 Participants and Data

This study employs a questionnaire survey method for testing the hypotheses and data were obtained from managers and engineers of enterprises. We collaborate with a service center of small and medium-sized enterprises （SMEs） in order to improve the response rate and ensure the quality and reliability of the questionnaire. All the participants are the trainees attending Innovation Management Courses held by the service center. 300 questionnaires were distributed in two months and a total of 295 questionnaires were returned （98.33 percent）. We excluded questionnaires with missing data for the main study variables， resulting in 267 questionnaires （90.5 percent） that were usable for the final analysis. The mean age of the participants was 34.6， 79 percent were male， and 68.3 percent were engineers.

3.2 Questionnaire Design

3.2.1 Independent Variables

In this paper， independent variables draw on creative personality and job autonomy. As to the creative personality， the approach of Unsworth et al. （2000） will be followed to maintain the formative index and to simplify data collection by selecting 16 positive adjectives as a measure of innovation personality （capable， clever， confident， egotistical， humorous， informal， individualistic， insightful， intelligent， wide interests， inventive， original， reflective， resourceful， self-confident， and unconventional）.The respondents were asked to mark which of these adjectives best describes them. The total number of selected adjectives is considered as the measure of an individual’s creative personality （a maximum of 16）. Common test methods for assessing construct reliability don’t apply， since the item scores of a formative index do not need to correlate （Rossiter， 2002）.

Furthermore， a job autonomy scale can be used to measure the level of knowledge workers’ job autonomy（Breaugh， 1985）. Three items measured the autonomy levels of the work process， work practices， and general process opportunities in creative activities. Along with science technology- related terminology modification， the original version of instruments was modified for the research purpose based on researchers’ and panel experts’specialized insight and experienced knowledge. One of the sample items states， “My job is such that I can decide when to do particular work activities.’ We assessed the job autonomy by asking respondents with a 7-point Likerttype item （rated 1， “strongly disagree，” to 7， “strongly agree”）. To ensure the validity of data， respondents could use “don’t know” confronting measured variables difficult to answer. The mean data of all the dimensions， then， can be the measurement.

3.2.2 Dependent Variables

As the dependent variable in this study， individual innovation performance was assessed using three items adapted from Dual et al. （2011）. And this dependent variable could be， according to Zhou et al. （2008）， could be measured by self-perceived creativity. For the reason that employees perceive that they produce new and potentially useful ideas and they are themselves are best suited to report creativity for the awareness of the subtle things they do in their jobs， it is more reliable to use self-perceived creativity in measuring than external measurement.

3.2.3 Control variables

We included age and gender as control variables in our analysis. Research has shown that there is a nonlinear relationship between age and creativity （“age curve”）； therefore， we included linear and quadraticage in our analysis. Control variables， on the base of several studies from Hirst （2011）， used in the analyses consisted of age， gender and education. To be specific， 0=male， 1= female， education level codes are 1-5 which represent under senior high school， senior high school and technical school， technical secondary school， bachelor， and master and above respectively， age uses actual values.

3.2.4 Controlling for Common Method Bias

In our survey study， like in many other studies， the data for the independent and dependent variables come from a single source （the knowledge workers）. Therefore， there is a risk for common method bias since respondents may have guesses our hypotheses and may have responded accordingly. We took several measures reported in the literature to control for common method bias. First， in our questionnaire we separated the independent and dependent variables （Podsakoff， MacKenzie， Lee， Podaskoff， 2003）. Second， we explicitly emphasized that there were no right or wrong answers， and third， we guaranteed anonymity （Podsakoff et al.， 2003； Rogelberg， Allen， Shanock， Scott， Shuffler， 2010）.

Given the consideration of reducing multicollinearity， we mean centered the scores for age and for the independent variables.

4. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS

This paper analyzes the data through Moderated Multiple Regression in SAS 9.20. First of all， we conduct a statistical description on all the sample data， including the reliability Cronbach α， mean， standard deviation and correlation coefficient of each variable. The result indicates that all the host variables including creative personality and job autonomy， are positively correlated to individual innovative performance in significant level （The detailed results see Table 1）.

We， then， test all the hypotheses by adopting Moderated Multiple Regression. First， only the control variables are included into the regression model （Model 1， M1 for short）. Second， we incorporate the host variables （creative personality and job autonomy） into the regression model （Model 2， M2）. Then the moderating effect is considered into the model （Model 3， M3）. See Table 2.

The results from Model 1 shows that， among those control variables， age and education have some relationship with knowledge workers’ innovative performance， namely， the younger the knowledge workers are， and the higher education they possess， the better innovative performance they will achieve. Gender， however， doesn’t share a significant relationship with the knowledge workers’ innovative performance.

The main effect tested by Model 2 presents that， creativie personality shows a significant relation with innovative performance， thereby verifying H1： “Creativie personality has a positive influence on innovative performance.”； H2： “The higher a knowledge worker’s job autonomy， the higher his/her creative performance.”is verified， due to the significant relation between job autonomy and innovative performance.

The moderated effect from Model 3 demonstrates that， moderated by job autonomy， the relation between creative personality and individual innovative performance gets strengthened. Thus， H3： “The effect of creative personality on creative performance depends on job autonomy， such that a high creative personality benefits more from a higher level of job autonomy than a low creative personality.” is verified.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

Conclusions and Implication

With analysis of Moderated Multiple Regression by the SAS software 9.20， the empirical analysis results are divided into the following three parts. In model 1， we can draw that both age （-0.15**） and education （0.29*） has significant relationship with knowledge worker’s individual creative performance. Compared with other types of knowledge employees， those who have higher education background tend to gain more advantages in innovation performance. In the perspective of innovation managements and human resources， recruitment and selection of creative talents， and training and development of employees to become more creativity can give birth to much positive effects on organizational innovation performance.

Analysis results from model 2 are the main effect tests of the model， with all two main variables significantly affecting the individual creative performance， which provide scientific support to the 1 and 2 hypothesis. The standardized regression coefficients are respectively Creative Personality （0.35**）， and Job Autonomy（0.24**）. According to standardized regression coefficients， creative personality has more effect on knowledge workers’ innovation performance and job autonomy has less effect. This study provides some significant insights in order to improve creative performance of knowledge workers within the innovation management or human resource management. 1） Recruiting and training. When hiring new knowledge employees， we should pay more attention to recruiting and selecting individuals with creative personality by setting a creative personality test in the interview. Apart from screening new interviewer， from the perspective of long-term development， we need to train employees and stimulate their potential of creative personality to enhance the innovation capability of knowledge workers， as well as organizations， which will in turn become a steady stream of capital accumulation for further development of enterprises. 2） Supportive job autonomy. A more supportive school climate， which provides more job autonomy—task autonomy， process autonomy， and decision-making autonomy—could encourage more innovation practices. Ultimately， this supportive job autonomy would be the cornerstone for a continuous creativity of knowledge workers. Consequently， enough autonomy， including arranging work plans flexible， customizing tasks and workflows， and selecting coworkers， should be given to knowledge workers to strengthen their satisfaction， encourage their motivation in conducting innovation activities， and then to improve organizational innovation capacity and performance.

Limitations and Directions for Further Research Knowledge workers are widely spread over varieties of industries and companies， so we could conclude with the limited samples that this study could only be applied into some scientific companies， research institutes as well as college schools. Besides， due to the limitation of samples， we give up analyzing the data with multiple linear regression model （HLM） which is more suitable for examining moderated effects. Accordingly， more research is needed with enhancing sample size and widening samples so that the HLM method could be used to analyze the data. In this way， our findings could be replicated in other organizations and job categories.

REFERENCES

Amabile T. M. （1996）. Creativity and Innovation in Organizations （1-15）. Harvard Business School.

Amabile T M. （1988）. A Model of Creativity and Innovatioon in Organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior， 10， 123-167.

Birchall D.， Tovstiga G.， Morrison A.， Gaule A. （2004）. Innovation Performance Measurement： Striking the Right Balance. London， UK： Grist Ltd.

Batey M.， Furnham A. （2008）. The Relationship Between Measures of Creativity and Schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences， 45， 816-821.

Barron F.， Harrington D. M. （1981）. Creativity， Intelligence， and Personality. Annual Review of Psychology， 32， 439-476.

Breaugh J A. （1985）. The Measurment of Work Autonomy. Human relations， 38（4）， 551-570.

Beehr T. A.， Drexler J. A. （1986）. Social Support， Autonomy， and Hierarchical Level Asmoderators of the Role Characteristics-Outcome Relationship. Journal of Organizational， 7（3）， 207-214.

Dul J， Ceylan C， Jaspers F. （2011）. Knowledge Workers’Creativity and the Role of the Physical Work Environment. Human Resources Managemennt， 50（6）， 715-734.

Drucker P. F. （1999）. Knowledge-Worker Productivity： The Biggest Challenge. California Management Review， 41（2）， 78-94.

Davis， M. A. （2009）. Understanding the Relationship Between Mood and Creativity： A Meta-Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes， 108， 25-38.

Florida R. （2005）. The Rise of the Creative Class （5thed.）. New York， NY： HarperCollins.

Feist， G. J. （1999）. The Influence of Personality on Artisticand Scientific Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg （Ed.）， Handbook of creativity （pp. 273-296）. New York， NY：Cambridge University Press.

George J M， Zhou J. （2001）. When Openness to Experiences and Conscientiousness are Related to Creative Behavior： An International Approach. Journal of Applied Psychology， 86（3）， 513-524.

Gough H G. （1979）. A Creative Personality Scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology， 37， 1398-1405.

Hackman J. R.， Oldham G. R. （1975）. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology， 60（2）， 159-170.

Hackman J D， Oldham G R. （1975）. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Jonrnal of Applied Psychology， 60（1）， 159-160.

Hagedoorn J.， Cloodt M. （2003）. Measuring Innovative Performance： Is There an Advantagein Using Multiple Indicators？ Research Policy， 32， 1365-1379.

Hirst， G.， van Knippenberg， D.， Zhou， J. （2009）. A Cross Level Perspective on Employee Creativity： Goal Orientation， Team Learning Behavior， and Individual Creativity. Academy of Management Journal， 52， 280-293.

Hirst G.， Knippenberg D. V.， Chen C. H.， Sacrament C. A. （2011）. Academy of Management Journal， 54（3）， 624-641.

Janssen O， Van Yperen N W. （2004）. Employee’s Goal Orientations， the Quality of Leadermenmber Exchange， and the Outcomes of Job Performance and Job Satisfaction. Academy of management journal， 27（3）， 38-384.

Lepak D P，Snell S A. （2002）. Examining the Human Resource Architecture： The Relationships Among Human Capital， Employment and Human Resource Configurations. Journal of Management， 28， 517-131.

Morgeson F. P.， Delaney-KlingerK. A.， Hemingway M. A. （2005）. The Importance of Job autonomy， Cognitive Ability， and Job-Related Skill for Predicting Role Breadth and Job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology， 90（2）， 399-406.

McLean L. D. （2005）. Organizational Culture’s Influence on Creativity and Innovation： A Review of the Literature and Implications for Human Resource Development. Advances in Developing Human Resources， 7， 226-246.

Martindale C. （1989）. Personality， Situation， and Creativity， Handbook of Creativity. New York， US： Springer US， 211-232.

ManD. C.， Lam S. S. K. （2003）. The Effects of Job Complexity and Autonomy Oncohesiveness in Collectivistic and Individualistic Work Groups： A Cross-Culturalanalysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior， 24， 979-1001.

Madjar， N.， Oldham， G. R.， Pratt， M. G. （2002）. There’s no Place like Home？ The Contributions of work and Non Work Creativity Support to Employees’Creative Performance. Academy of Management Journal， 45， 757-767.

Mumford M. D. （2000）. Managing Creative People： Strategies and Tactics for Innovation. Human Resource Management Review， 10， 1-29.

Nonaka I.， Toyama R. （2004）. The Knowledge-Creating Theory Revisited： Knowledgecreating as a Synthesizing Process. Knowledge and Process Management， 1（1）， 2-10.

Oldham G R， Cummings A. （1996）. Employee Creativity： Personal and Contextual Factors at Work. Academy of Management Journal， 39（3）， 607-634.

RossiterJ. R. （2002）. The C-OAR-SE Procedure for Scale Development in Marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing， 19（4）， 305-335.

Sternberg R. J.， Lubart T. I. （1996）. Investing in Creativity. American Psychologist， 51（7）， 677-688.

Song J H， Ujm D， Kim J. （2012）. Creativity and Knowledge Creation Practices in the School Contex： The Moderating Role of Task-Related Job Autonomy. Performance Improvement Quarterly， 24（4）， 61-79.

Troyer L.， Mueller C. W.， Osinsky P. I. （2000）. Who’s the Boss？ A Role-Theoretic Analysis of Customer Work. Work and Occupations， 27（3）， 406-427.

Unsworth， K. L.， Brown， H.， McGuire， L. （2000）. Employee Innovation： The Roles of Idea Generationand Idea Implementation. Presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology， New Orleans， LA.

Vicari S.， Troilo， G. （2000）. Organizational Creativity： A New Perspective from Cognitivesystem Theory. In G. von Krogh， I. Nonaka， T. Nishiguchi （Eds.）， Knowledge Creation： A source of value （pp. 63-88）. London， UK： Macmillan Press.

Wolfe R A. （1994）. Organizational Innovation： Review， Critique and Suggested Research Direction. Journal of Management Studies， 31（3）， 405-430.

Woodman R. W.， Sawyer J. E.， Griffin R. W. （1993）. Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity. Academyof Management Review， 18， 293-321.

WANG A.C.， CHENG B.S. （2010）. When does Benevolent Leadership Lead to Creativity？The Moderating Role of Creative Role Identity and Job Autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior， 31（1）， 106-121.

ZHOU J. （2003）. When the Presence of Creative Coworkersis Related to Creativity： Role of Supervisorclose Monitoring， Developmental Feedback， and Creative Personality. Journal of Applied Psychology， 88， 413-422.

Zhou J， Shin S J， Cannella Jr， Albert A. （2008）. Employee SelfPerceived Creativity after Mergers and Acquisitions： Interactive Effects of Threat-Opportunity Perception， Access to Resources， and Support for Creativity. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science， 44（4）， 397-421.