Jurnal SDM 2

481462
h-article2013
HRD12410.1177/1534484313481462Human Resource Development ReviewJoo et al.
Integrative Literature Review

Human Resource Development Review
12(4) 390–421
Creativity and Human © 2013 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
Resource Development: An sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1534484313481462
Integrative Literature Review hrd.sagepub.com
and a Conceptual Framework

for Future Research
Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo1, Gary N. McLean2, and Baiyin Yang3
Abstract
A focus on creativity has increased in the last two decades due to the turbulent
changes in the business environment, the fierce competition in the global market,
and the knowledge-based economy that has made jobs more complex and mobile.
This article discusses the history and transition of creativity research based on three
perspectives of creativity: personal characteristics, contextual perspectives, and
integrative perspectives. This article also reviews the extant empirical studies that
have been published from 2001 to 2012. Furthermore, to stimulate more rigorous
creativity research in human resource development (HRD), this article provides a
conceptual framework integrating personal factors and contextual factors such as
organizational, social/group, and job contexts. Finally, theoretical implications and
recommendations for future creativity research in HRD are discussed.
Keywords
creativity, human resource development, HRD
The depth, breadth, and speed of change that engulfs businesses today, along with
trends such as globalization, technology advancement, and a knowledge-based econ-
omy have put increasing pressure on organizations to be more creative (Ford & Gioia,
1Winona State University, Winona, MN, USA

2McLean Global Consuling, St. Paul, MN, USA
3Tsinghua University, Beijing, P. R. China
Corresponding Author:
Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo, Assistant Professor of Human Resource Management, College of Business,
Winona State University, Somsen Hall 302, Winona, MN 55987-5838, USA.
Email: bjoo@winona.edu
Joo et al. 391
1995; Kim & Mauborgne, 2005). Creativity has become and will remain indispensable
as organizations and their environments fundamentally change (Ford & Gioia, 1995),
and as jobs for knowledge workers become more complex and work designs include
more autonomy (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001).
Organizations strive to create new demands or blue oceans that denote “all the indus-
tries not in existence today—the unknown or untapped market space, untainted by
competition” (Kim & Mauborgne, 2004, p. 78). Therefore, to survive, adapt, and gain
competitive advantage, organizations need to unleash their employees’ innate creative
potential because employees’ creative ideas can be used as building blocks for organi-
zational innovation, change, and competitiveness (Amabile, 1988; Woodman, Sawyer,
& Griffin, 1993; Zhou & George, 2003).
Creativity does not magically come from an invisible hand; it comes from people.
Human assets are regarded as the primary source of value, growth, and sustained com-
petitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Pfeffer, 1994; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). In the
1960s, Drucker (1992) foresaw the emergence of knowledge workers who could apply
theoretical and analytical knowledge that were acquired through formal education to
developing new products or services. Today, human creativity is recognized as a criti-
cal economic resource since creativity is ultimately what raises productivity and thus
raises living standards (Florida, 2002). Dividing the economy into three sectors—
creativity, manufacturing, and service—Florida (2002) advocated for an increased
emphasis on the creative sector that consists of people who add economic value
through their creativity. One third of workers in the United States, including scientists,
engineers, artists, musicians, designers, and knowledge-based professionals, fall into
the creative class sector, and they generate half of the nation’s total income (Florida,
2002, 2005).
Although it is undeniable that creativity stems from individual ability, whether or
not individual creativity is activated, exercised, and channeled into a final product or
service is a function of the work environment, or contextual characteristics that may
be involved in stimulating and supporting creativity (Amabile, 1996; Lubart, 1999;
Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Thus the major components of these contextual
characteristics can be categorized into job, group, and organizational-level factors
(Shalley & Gilson, 2004).
Problem Statement and Research Purpose

The number of studies on creativity has drastically increased during the past two
decades. Searching Business Source Premiere using the keyword, creativity, we found
143 full-text scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles published between 1981 and
1990, 442 articles between 1991 and 2000, and 1,237 articles between 2001 and 2010.
While research on creativity in management and psychology has exponentially
increased for the last three decades, studies on creativity among human resource
development (HRD) scholars have been scarce. More specifically, of the approxi-
mately 190 papers presented at the 2006 Academy of Human Resource Development
(AHRD) conference, only one paper was on organizational creativity and two papers
392 Human Resource Development Review 12(4)
were on innovation performance. Among the 225 presentations and sessions in the
2011 AHRD conference proceedings, only two papers were about creativity and three
were on innovation. According to the program book of the 2012 AHRD conference, of
the 207 sessions including full papers, abstracts, roundtables, innovative sessions, and
poster sessions, no sessions discussed creativity or innovation in organizations. Among
all the articles published in the four HRD journals, we found 18 articles about creativ-
ity: 7 from Human Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ), 2 from Human
Resource Development International (HRDI), 2 from Human Resource Development
Review (HRDR), and 7 from Advances in Developing Human Resources (ADHR).
Empirical research on creativity in HRD is even scarcer. We found only one empirical
paper out of those 18 published articles. Furthermore, all the articles in the special
issue of ADHR that featured creativity in HRD in 2005 were conceptual papers.
Content knowledge, creative process skills, motivation, and creative self-efficacy
can be enhanced by training or learning (Amabile, 1996; Unsworth & Parker, 2003).
They are all in the domain of HRD. Since HRD provides learning and development in
individual and organizational dimensions (Joo & McLean, 2006), we believe HRD can
play a pivotal role in enhancing employee creativity and in building a more appropri-
ate contextual environment for creativity by providing employees with learning and
development opportunities and by changing the organizational culture and practices.
However, HRD scholars have paid little attention to creativity research with no focus
on theory building to guide future research. More attention to creativity is needed from
HRD researchers and practitioners who need knowledge and skills to create connec-
tions between creativity and HRD (Egan, 2005; Waight, 2005). This study attempts to
respond to this urgent need.
The purpose of this article is to review the history and transition of creativity
research, discussing three perspectives on creativity. The various definitions of creativ-
ity are presented based on the literature review. Then we discuss the history of creativity
research from three perspectives: personal, contextual, and integrative views. This arti-
cle also aims to investigate the extant empirical studies. We present a brief literature
review of empirical studies on creativity in the workplace that have been published
from 2001 to 2012. Finally, this study is to provide a conceptual framework to simulate
more rigorous creativity research in HRD. Based on the integrative view, we suggest
potential constructs for creativity research in HRD including personal factors as well as
contextual factors (i.e., organizational, social, and job contexts).
Transition of Creativity Research

This literature overview focuses on published research on employee creativity in the
workplace, the majority of which has been published within the last two decades. Books
and book chapters on the general topic of creativity in the workplace have also appeared
in the last decade. The history of transition of creativity research is based on the nine
major literature review and conceptual papers (i.e., Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian, 1999;
Ford, 1996; George, 2007; Morris & Leung, 2010; Mumford, 2000; Shalley et al.,
2004; Shalley & Gilson, 2004; Woodman et al., 1993; Zhou & Shalley, 2003).
Joo et al. 393
Traditionally, most studies on creativity have focused on personal characteristics,

such as personality and cognitive ability, and on the creative few individuals (Feist,
1998; McCrae & Costa, 1997; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). Attention has since
moved away from the individual focus and the creative few toward the contextual
view and then toward the integrative view (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999; Zhou & Shalley,
2003). Research on the impact of contextual characteristics on creativity has increased
since the late 1980s and early 1990s (Amabile, 1996; Amabile & Conti, 1999; Amabile
& Gryskiewicz, 1989; George & Zhou, 2001; West & Farr, 1990; Zhou, 2003; Zhou &
Shalley, 2003) but most research has relied on measures to assess contextual factors at
only one level (i.e., organizational, group, or job level; Zhou & Shalley, 2003). In
1993, Woodman et al. developed an interactionist (or interactional) model of creativ-
ity, arguing that employee creativity is influenced by cross-level factors (i.e., organi-
zational, group, and individual factors). Although many researchers have suggested
that the integrative view of creativity is important (Amabile, 1995; Csikszentmihalyi,
1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999; Woodman et al., 1993), empirical research investi-
gating the interaction of the contextual and personal characteristics and their effects on
employee creativity has increased in the last 10 years or so.
Creativity Defined
A variety of definitions of creativity are presented in Table 1. Much of the empirical
research has defined creativity as an outcome, focusing on the production of new and
useful ideas concerning products, services, processes, and procedures (Amabile, 1996;
Ford, 1995; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley, 1991; Zhou, 1998). Using this defi-
nition, research has examined creative solutions to business problems, creative busi-
ness strategies, and creative changes in job processes (Ford & Gioia, 2000; Taggar,
2002; West & Anderson, 1996). Creative outcomes can range from minor adaptations
in workflow or products to major breakthroughs and development of new products or
processes (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). Gardner (1993) contrasted “little C creativity—
the sort which all of us evince in our daily lives—and big C creativity—the kind of
breakthrough which occurs only very occasionally” (p. 29). Csikszentmihalyi (1996)
seemed to agree with this idea. In a similar vein, Boden (1991) distinguished between
psychological (P) creativity and historical (H) creativity (Nickerson, 1999). While P
creativity has to do with idea generation at a personal level, H creativity has to do with
ideas that are “fundamentally novel with respect to the whole of human history”
(Boden, 1991, p. 32).
Creativity is useful novelty. Both novelty and usefulness are necessary conditions
for an idea or solution to be judged creative. Few people would question that an idea
must contain some element of novelty or originality to be considered creative. To be
considered creative in the context of creativity at work, however, novelty is not
enough; ideas must also be useful. A novel idea that has no potential value is unusual,
but not creative (Zhou & George, 2003). This definition includes creative solutions to
business problems, creative business strategies, and creative changes in work pro-
cesses. In this study, we define creativity as the development of ideas about products,
Table 1. Definitions of Creativity.
Author(s) Definition
Amabile (1996) “The quality of products or responses judged to be creative
by appropriate observers, and . . . the process by which
something so judged is produced” (p. 33).
Csikszentmihalyi “Any act, idea, or product that changes an existing domain, or
(1996) that transforms an existing domain into a new one” (p.28).
Domain consists of a set of symbolic rules and procedures.
Ford (1995) “A context-specific, subjective judgment of the novelty and
value of an outcome of an individual’s or a collective’s
behaviour” (p. 17).
Woodman (1995) “The creation of a valuable, useful new product, service,
idea, procedure, or process by individuals working within a
complex social organization” (p. 293).
services, practices, processes, and procedures that are judged to be (a) original and
novel, and (b) appropriate and potentially useful (Amabile, 1996; Oldham &
Cummings, 1996; Robinson & Stern, 1997; Shalley, 1991; Shalley et al., 2004;
Woodman et al., 1993; Zhou & George, 2001; Zhou & Shalley, 2003).
Creativity and innovation are closely related and overlapping concepts, but they are
not interchangeable. Creativity and innovation have often been studied in isolation by
researchers using different methodologies and models (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999).
Creativity has been studied in psychology at the individual level, while innovation has
been studied in economics and management at the organizational level. Organizational
scientists and innovation researchers define innovation as “the intentional introduction
and application within a role, group or organization of ideas, processes, products or pro-
cedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the indi-
vidual, the group, the organization or wider society” (West & Farr, p. 9). While creativity
refers to the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain, innovation is defined as
the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization (Amabile, 1996).
Creativity is important in and of itself and can be conceptualized as a necessary precon-
dition required for innovation. Thus creativity is the seed of innovation.
However, “the link between the two is not straightforward and linear” (King, 1995,
p. 87). Innovative organizations are those that introduce new technologies or manage-
ment techniques pertaining to products, services, and processes earlier than their com-
petitors. Creative individuals may influence all stages of the innovation process, but
organizational innovation requires more than creativity. Success or failure of innova-
tion depends on many factors, both within and outside of an organization, from
employee relations to market and regulatory forces. That is, creativity requires novel
ideas, whereas innovation can be based on ideas that are adopted from external sources.
Therefore, creativity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for innovation. It is
noted that this study is concerned solely with creativity and the factors that affect cre-
ativity in an organization.
Joo et al. 395
Three Perspectives of Creativity Research

Traditionally, research on creativity has focused on individual characteristics. Later,
the concept of contextual characteristics or work environment on employee creativity
impacted the creativity literature. Recently, the integrative perspective of creativity
that integrates the two characteristics has emerged. More detailed information and
major findings of each perspective are described in this section, based on the nine
major integrative literature review papers mentioned previously.
Personal characteristics view. Creativity research has a long history in psychology. Such
research has focused on identifying individuals with personal characteristics or cogni-
tive ability that can be especially effective at recognizing problems or at combining
new information that may enable them to produce more creative work (Shalley et al.,
2004). In addition, it has also focused on the development of tests to assess and iden-
tify creative individuals, or methods for developing the creative skills of individuals
(Shalley et al., 2004).
Research has found that creative individuals tend to be independent, self-confident,
unconventional, achievement-oriented, and more risk-taking, and to have wide
interests and a greater openness to experiences (Ford, 1995; Simonton, 2000).
Creative individuals also tend to have a discovery orientation that leads them to
view situations from multiple perspectives, to find problems, and to ask novel
questions (Csikszentmihalyi & Getzels, 1988). Creativity research on personality,
traits, skills, experiences, motivation, and intelligence is reviewed in more detail
below.
First, researchers, such as Amabile (1988) and Eysenck (1993) have noted that
certain personality traits often characterize creative people. Researchers have identi-
fied a set of core personality traits that are reasonably stable across fields and result in
some individuals being more creative than others. These traits include broad interests,
independence of judgment, autonomy, and a firm sense of self as creative, self-confident,
attracted to complexity, aesthetically oriented, and risk-taking (Shalley & Gilson,
2004; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Finally, proactive individuals look for opportunities
and act on them, show initiative, take action, and are persistent in successfully imple-
menting change (Crant, 2000). Proactivity, which is a complex construct that has
important personal and organizational consequences (Crant, 2000), involves many
aspects of the traits mentioned above.
Second, creative performance requires a set of creativity-relevant skills (Amabile,
1988), which can be defined as the ability to think creatively, generate alternatives,
engage in divergent thinking, and/or suspend judgment (Shalley & Gilson, 2004).
These skills are necessary because creativity requires a cognitive-perceptual style that
involves the collection and application of diverse information, use of effective heuris-
tics, an accurate memory, and the ability to concentrate for long periods of time
(Amabile, 1988). In addition, skills such as problem finding, problem construction,
combination, and idea evaluation are important for creativity (Mumford, Baughman,
Maher, Costanza, & Supinski, 1997).
Third, having depth and breadth of knowledge has been linked to individual creativ-
ity. Domain-specific knowledge reflects an individual’s level of education, training,
experience, and knowledge within a particular context (Gardner, 1993). Thus HRD can
directly and indirectly affect employee creativity. For example, education provides
exposure to a variety of knowledge bases, viewpoints, and experiences. It also rein-
forces the use of experimentation and problem-solving skills, and it cognitively devel-
ops individuals so that they are more likely to use multiple and diverse perspectives and
more complicated schemas. Training can provide employees with guidance on how to
generate novel ideas as a part of what they do and enhance an individual’s creative
thinking skills and problem-solving ability (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). In this vein, cre-
ativity can be greatly enhanced by HRD efforts in organizations.
Fourth, it would be difficult to be creative in an area without having some experi-
ence in what has historically been constituted as routine or the status quo (Shalley &
Gilson, 2004). Experience in a field is a necessary component for employee creativity
because an individual needs some level of familiarity to perform creative work. While
task familiarity can lead to more habitual performance (Ford, 1995), it can also pro-
vide the opportunity to prepare for creativity through deliberate practice of task domain
skills and activities (Shalley & Gilson, 2004).
Fifth, creativity also requires some level of passion or internal forces that push
individuals to persevere in the face of challenges that are inherent to creative work. A
number of studies on individual creativity have focused on the importance of intrinsic
motivation (i.e., feelings of competence and self-determination on a given task) for
creativity (Amabile, 1988; Shalley, 1991). For example, R&D professionals have
reported that intrinsic motivation is critical for creativity (Amabile & Gryskiewicz,
1989). Focusing on motivation for creativity, a number of theorists have hypothesized
about the relevance of intrinsic motivation, the need for order, the need for achieve-
ment, and other motives (Amabile, 1996).
Finally, one of the widely held beliefs on creativity is that a person’s creativity
increases with intelligence. Only modest correlations have been reported between gen-
eral intelligence and creativity (Nickerson, 1999). Intelligence may enable creativity
to some degree. Thus, once a person has enough intelligence to function in one’s work,
this relationship no longer holds (Robinson & Stern, 1997).
For many years, the personality characteristics perspective of creativity has been
the most common approach, using psychometric methodologies and cognitive psy-
chology. Creativity was generally viewed as being difficult to train for, as the loci of
creativity are within the individual, and the expression in creative products is influ-
enced by random acts of chance or serendipity (Williams & Yang, 1999). A critical
limitation of this approach, however, is that it focuses only on identifying individual
differences related to creativity, ignoring the impact of real-life contexts on creativity.
Later, important and distinctive contributions have emerged from the efforts of several
psychologists who have employed alternative investigative approaches (Amabile,
1988, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Ford, 1995; Gardner, 1993). Table 2 summarized
the studies that examined the influences of personal and contextual factors on employee
creativity for the last 12 years.
Joo et al. 397
Table 2. Summary of Empirical Studies on Creativity From an Integrative Perspective.

Author(s) Personal factors Contextual factors Level of analysis Journal
George and Zhou Openness to Feedback valence Individual JAP

(2001) experience Unclear ends
Conscientiousness Unclear means
Multiple means
Close monitoring
Inaccurate communication
Unhelpful coworkers
Negative work environment
Zhou and George Job dissatisfaction Individual AMJ
(2001) Feedback from coworkers
Support from coworkers
Perceived organizational
support for creativity
Taggar (2002) Five-factor model Individual creativity-relevant Individual AMJ
(Big-5) processes Group
General cognitive Group creativity-relevant
ability processes
Task motivation
Domain relevant skills
Creativity relevant
processes
Baer, Oldham, and Cognitive style Job complexity Individual LQ
Cummings (2003) Extrinsic rewards
Farmer, Tierney, and Creative role identity Perceived coworker Individual AMJ
Kung-McIntyre (2003) Self-views for past expectations for creativity
creative behavior Perceived organizational
valuing of creativity
Jaussi and Dionne Intrinsic motivation Transformational leadership Individual LQ
(2003) Unconventional leader
behavior
Leader as creative role
model
Jung, Chow, and Wu Empowerment Individual LQ
(2003) Transformational leadership Group
Support for innovation
Shin and Zhou (2003) Conservation Transformational leadership Individual AMJ
Intrinsic motivation Company support for
creativity
Zhou (2003) Creative personality Close monitoring of Individual JAP
supervisors
Presence of creative
coworkers
Supervisor developmental
feedback
Amabile, Schatzel, Perceived leader support Individual LQ
Moneta, and Kramer - Instrumental support
(2004) - Socioemotional support
Leader behavior
Alge, Ballinger, Psychological empowerment Individual JAP
Tangirala, and Oakley Information privacy
(2006) - Perceived legitimacy
- Information gathering
control
(continued)
Table 2. (continued)
- Information handling
control
Familiarity with coworkers
Status relative to coworkers
Fong (2006) Emotional ambivalence Individual AMJ
Unusual emotional
experience
George and Zhou Positive mood Supervisor developmental Individual AMJ
(2007) Negative mood feedback
Supervisor interactional
justice
Trust in the supervisor
Joo (2007) Proactive personality Organizational learning Individual Dissertation
culture
LMX quality
Job complexity
Shin and Zhou (2007) Team creativity Transformational leadership Group JAP
efficacy Average team tenure
Wu, McMullen, Leadership regulatory focus Individual JBV
Neubert, and Yi - Promotion-focused
(2008) - Prevention-focused
Baer, Oldham, Big-five personality Group JCB
Jacobson, and Team creative efficacy
Hollingshead (2008)
Cohen-Meitar, Carmeli, Feeling of vitality Organizational identity Individual CRJ
and Waldman (2009) Sense of positive Perceived external prestige
regard and mutuality Job challenge
Organization-based Freedom
self-esteem
Gong, Huang, and Farh Learning orientation Transformational leadership Individual AMJ
(2009) Creative self-efficacy
Gumusluoglu and Ilsev Intrinsic motivation Psychological empowerment Individual JBR
(2009) Transformational leadership
Perception of support for
innovation
Hirst, Knippenberg, and Goal orientation Team learning behavior Individual AMJ
Zhou (2009) - Learning
orientation
- Avoidance
orientation
- Approach
orientation
Kim, Hon, and Crant Proactive personality Career satisfaction Individual JBP
(2009) Perceived insider status
Shalley, Gilson, and Creative personality Job complexity Individual AMJ
Blum (2009) Intrinsic motivation Supportive work context
Cognitive style
Negative affectivity
Growth need strength
(continued)
Joo et al. 399
Simmons and Ren Goal orientation Individual CRJ

(2009) - Learning
orientation
- Avoid orientation
- Prove orientation
Wang and Cheng Creative role identity Benevolent leadership Individual JOB
(2009) Job autonomy
Zhou, Shin, Brass, Choi, Conformity Weak/strong ties Individual JAP
and Zhang (2009) Density
Baer, Leenders, Collaboration Individual AMJ
Oldham, and Vadera Intergroup competition
(2010) Membership change
Bechtoldt, De Dreu, Motivated information Group JPSP
Carsten, Nijstad, and processing
Choi (2010) Epistemic social tuning
Kim, Hon, and Lee Proactive personality Supervisor support for Individual CRJ
(2010) Job creativity creativity
requirement
Liao, Liu, and Loi (2010) Self-efficacy Leader–member exchange Individual AMJ
(LMX) quality Group
Team–member exchange
(TMX) quality
LMX differentiation
TMX differentiation
Ohly and Fritz (2010) Proactive behavior Work characteristics Individual JOB
Challenge appraisal
Pieterse, van Psychological empowerment Individual JOB
Knippenberg, Transformational leadership
Schippers, and Stam Transactional leadership
(2010)
Raja and John (2010) Big-five personality Job scope Individual HR
Sagiv, Arieli, Cognitive style Task structure Individual JOB
Goldenberg, and
Goldchmidt (2010)
Sweetman, Luthans, Psychological capital Individual CJAS
Avey, and Luthans
(2011)
Sun, Zhang, Qu, and Psychological empowerment Individual LQ
Chen (2012) Transformational leadership
Tsai, Chi, Grandey, and Positive group affective tone Group JOB
Fung (2011) Team trust
Yoon, Song, Lim, and Organizational learning Group HRDI
Joo (2010) culture
Knowledge sharing
Zhang and Bartol Empowerment role Psychological empowerment Individual AMJ
(2010) identity Empowering leadership
Intrinsic motivation Leader encouragement of
creativity
Creative process engagement
Chen, Shih, and Yeh Individual initiative Skill variety Individual IJHRM
(2011) Knowledge specificity
Creative resources
(continued)
Cheung and Wong Transformation leadership Individual LODJ

(2011) Leader support
Grant and Berry (2011) Intrinsic motivation Individual AMJ
Prosocial motivation
Perspective taking
Mathisen (2011) Creative self-efficacy Task type Individual CIM
Task autonomy
LMX quality
Collegial support for
creativity
Zhang, Tsui, and Wang Collective efficacy Transformational leadership Group LQ
(2011) Authoritarian leadership
Knowledge sharing
Zhou, Hirst, and Participation Leader intellectual Individual JOB
Shipton (2011) stimulation
Promotional focus
Gong, Cheung, Wang, Proactivity Information exchange Individual JOM
and Huang (2012) Psychological safety
perspectives
Joo, Song, Lim, and Perceived learning culture Group IJTD
Yoon (2012) Developmental feedback
Team cohesion
Rego, Sousa, Marques, Psychological capital Authentic leadership Individual JBR
and Cunha (2012)
Volmer, Spurk, and Job autonomy Individual LQ
Niessen (2012) LMX quality
Creative work involvement
Zhou, Hirst, and Creative self-efficacy Problem-solving demand Individual JAP
Shipton (2012) Intrinsic motivation
Somech and Drach- Aggregated individual Team composition Group JOM
Zahav (2013) creative personality Team climate for innovation
Functional heterogeneity
Note. AMJ = Academy of Management Journal, CIM = Creativity and Innovation Management, CJAC = Canadian Journal of
Administrative Science, CRJ = Creative Research Journal, HR = Human Relations, HRDI = Human Resource Development
International, IJHRM = International Journal of Human Resource Management, IJTD = International Journal of Training and
Development, JAP = Journal of Applied Psychology, JBR = Journal of Business Research, JBP = Journal of Business and Psychology,
JBV = Journal of Business Venturing, JCB = Journal of Creative Behavior, JOB = Journal of Organizational Behavior, JOM =
Journal of Management, JPSP = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, LODJ = Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, LQ = The Leadership Quarterly.
Contextual characteristics view. Although it is undeniable that creativity stems from

individual ability, whether or not individual creativity is activated, exercised, and
channeled into the final products or services is a function of the work environment, or
the contextual characteristics. For instance, a manager may oversee employees who
are working toward creative outcomes. A key component that is necessary for creativ-
ity is the context within which the creativity takes place, because creative outcomes
cannot and do not occur in a vacuum. Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, and Strange (2002)
Joo et al. 401
stated that creative work is being contextualized so that the success of creativity
depends on the capabilities, pressures, resources, and the sociotechnical system.
Contextual characteristics refer to “dimensions of the work environment that poten-
tially influence an employee’s creativity but that are not part of the individual” (Shalley
et al., 2004, p. 935). These characteristics include the job (or work) setting and social
relationships with supervisors and coworkers. The theoretical work of Amabile (1988,
1996) serves as a general framework that describes a variety of relevant factors that
can either enhance or stifle employee creativity. Focusing on this contextual view,
researchers in management began to conduct creativity research, borrowing ideas
from the fields of psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology, and others to
establish its scholarly roots (Ford, 1995).
Amabile (1988, 1996) recognized that different environmental models can serve
either to promote or to inhibit creativity. Arguing that the work environment can
influence both the level and the frequency of employees’ creative behavior, Amabile
(1995, 1996) identified stronger and weaker dimensions of work environment fac-
tors: (a) organizational encouragement and support for creativity (e.g., fair judgment of
new ideas, recognition for creative work, and encouragement to take risks); (b) super-
visory encouragement (e.g., clear overall goal-setting and openness to new ideas);
(c) work group support (e.g., open, trusting communication within a challenging, com-
mitted group of skilled coworkers); (d) sufficient resources (e.g., facilities, money, and
information); (e) challenging work that is perceived as important; and (f) freedom in
deciding how to do one’s work. The low-creativity projects were higher on organiza-
tional impediments to creativity (e.g., political problems, excessive criticism of new
ideas, destructive competition, and an emphasis on maintaining the status quo), and
workload/time pressure. (Amabile, 1995)
Integrative view. Theories have suggested that a confluence of environment-centered

variables and person-centered variables (i.e., intelligence, knowledge, cognitive styles,
personality, and motivation) are necessary for creativity research (Amabile, 1996;
Csikszentmyhali, 1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). As Sternberg and Lubart (1999)
stated, unidisciplinary approaches to creativity tend to view a part of the phenomenon
as the whole phenomenon, often resulting in what is a narrow, unsatisfying vision of
creativity. Much recent work on creativity has hypothesized that multiple components
must converge for creativity to occur (Amabile, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Gard-
ner, 1993).
According to Woodman (1995), creative behavior is an interaction of person and
situation. This interactional perspective regards creative behavior of employees as “a
complex person–context interaction influenced by events of the past as well as salient
aspects of the current situation” (Woodman et al., 1993, p. 294). Arguing that creativ-
ity is the complex product of a person’s behavior in a given situation, several authors
have suggested a more comprehensive theory of organization creativity encompassing
(a) the creative process, (b) the creative product, (c) the creative person, (d) the cre-
ative situation, and (e) the way in which each of these components interacts with the
others (Woodman et al., 1993). In other words, the gestalt of creative output (new
products, services, ideas, procedures, and processes) for the entire system comes from
“the complex mosaic of individual, group, and organizational characteristics and
behaviors occurring within the salient situational influences existing at each level of
organization” (Woodman et al., 1993, p. 296). In this study, we used the term, integra-
tive view, instead of interactional view since the latter could be misleading in an inter-
actional analysis.
Empirical Research on Creativity since 2001

The majority of empirical studies on creativity in an organization published for the last
12 years have mostly been in management and industrial and organizational (I/O)
psychology journals. We reviewed 50 empirical studies that were published from 2001
to 2012 in the above journals as well as HRD journals. Articles for this review were
identified through searches of Business Source Premier and Google Scholar databases
(through July, 2012), using one keyword, creativity. Then we reviewed the titles and
the abstracts of those articles. While there are a number of articles about creativity in
diverse fields, only the articles that focused on creativity in organizations were
included in this study due to the difference of the foci. Particular attention was paid to
works that had been extensively cited in major journals. A few articles that are less
relevant to HRD were excluded.
Table 2 summarizes the key constructs of these studies. Most articles reviewed in
this article are based on management (Academy of Management Journal: 13,
Leadership Quarterly: 7, Journal of Management: 2, and others: 8) and cognitive,
social, industrial/organizational psychology (Journal of Applied Psychology: 6,
Journal of Organizational Behavior: 6, and others: 5). The rest were HRD-related
journals: one each from Human Resource Development International, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, and International Journal of Training and
Development.
In terms of level of analysis, 39 articles focused on individual creativity, whereas
11 were group-level research. Three studies examined creativity at both the individual
and group levels. About 70% was integrative research, examining both personal and
contextual factors in each study. Frequently used constructs for personal characteris-
tics included Big-5 personality, cognitive style, creative efficacy, goal orientation, pro-
activity, conformity, intrinsic motivation, psychological empowerment, and
psychological capital. Contextual factors included leader support, coworkers’ support,
organizational support, job characteristics, and rewards. Constructs that are relevant to
HRD are discussed in more detail in the following section.
A Framework for Creativity Research in HRD

Based on the integrative perspective and the review of previous empirical studies, we
present a conceptual framework of creativity to stimulate more rigorous and relevant
creativity research in the field of HRD. Shalley et al. (2004), in their integrative
review of creativity research, suggested a four-dimension model including personal
Joo et al. 403
characteristics (e.g., learning/training of content knowledge, creative process skills,

motivation, creative self-efficacy, and personality) and three contextual factors: orga-
nizational context (e.g., organizational culture, organizational support for creativity),
social context (e.g., coworkers, leadership, and leader development), and job context
(e.g., job redesign, job empowerment, job engagement). This framework was derived
from earlier creativity theories that emphasized the importance of person–context
interactions (or integrative perspective), which is premised on the idea that creativity
is an individual-level phenomenon that can be affected by both personal and situa-
tional variables (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Shalley et al., 2004; Woodman et al., 1993; Zhou
& Shalley, 2003). Adopting the typology of Shalley et al. (2004), we propose the
potential constructs that are relevant to HRD.
Personal Characteristics
Traditional creativity research has focused on personality, traits, skills, experiences,
motivation, and intelligence. Using three interlocking circles to represent each of the
three components of creativity (i.e., domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant pro-
cesses, and intrinsic task motivation), Amabile (1988) illustrated that the area of over-
lap among the elements indicates the area of highest creativity for individuals and
highest innovation for organizations. Thus the key for organizations is to identify this
creativity intersection for each individual and to enable the concurrent development of
the skills, processes, and motivation that are central to creative performance. Managers
and HRD professionals can enhance employee creativity by providing training pro-
grams and learning and development opportunities.
Personality has received substantial attention in the creativity literature. Previous
studies have selected trait-like character strengths and virtues that tend to exhibit con-
siderable stability over time (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), such as Big-5 personality
and core self-evaluations (e.g., Baer et al., 2008; George & Zhou, 2001; Raja & John,
2010; Taggar, 2002), goal orientation (e.g., Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009; Hirst, Van
Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009; Simmons & Ren, 2009), intrinsic motivation (e.g.,
Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Jaussie & Dionne, 2003; Shalley et al., 2009; Shin &
Zhou, 2003; Zhang & Bartol, 2010), proactivity (e.g., Gong et al., 2010; Joo, 2007;
Kim, Hon, & Crant, 2009; Kim, Hon, & Lee, 2010; Ohly & Fritz, 2009), and psycho-
logical capital (e.g., Rego et al., 2012; Sweetman et al., 2011). Within the domain of
the workplace, employees’ traits have been emphasized for effective recruitment,
selection, and placement (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). As proxies for personal
characterisics, we suggest the use of core self–evaluation, goal orientation, proactive
personality, and psychological capital.
Core self-evaluation is a foundational higher order concept of an individual’s self-
evaluation of his or her personal characteristics (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thresen, 2002).
Core self-evaluations include four specific subfactors of personality traits: self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability, also known as neu-
roticism (Judge et al., 2002). Goal orientation refers to the goals pursued by individu-
als in achievement situations. Goal orientation is a motivational variable expected to
affect the allocation of effort during learning (Fisher & Ford, 1998). Goal orientation
can be classified into two categories: learning (task or mastery) orientation, and per-
formance (ego/social) orientation (Farr, Hofmann, & Ringenbach, 1993). Performance
goal orientation refers to a desire to demonstrate one’s competence to others and to
receive positive evaluations from others. Ability is a fixed, uncontrollable, personal
attribute and, therefore, extra effort indicates low ability (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002;
Fisher & Ford, 1998). Individuals with high performance goal orientation are inter-
ested in demonstrating task competence by gaining positive and avoiding negative
judgments of competence. Learning goal orientation refers to a desire to increase
one’s competence by developing new skills and mastering new situations. Individuals
with high learning goal orientation focus on increasing their learning and/or task com-
petence, seeking challenges, and persisting in the case of failure (Dweck & Legget,
1988). Proactive personality is defined as a belief in one’s ability to overcome con-
straints by situational forces and the ability to affect changes in the environment
(Bateman & Crant, 1993). Thus proactivity is a complex, multiple-caused construct
that has important personal and organizational consequences (Crant, 2000). More spe-
cifically, Crant (2000, p. 436) described proactive behavior as “taking initiative in
improving current circumstances or creating new one; it involves challenging the sta-
tus quo rather than passively adapting to present conditions.”
While it is necessary to select the right people and place them in the right places for
effective human resource management, they are insufficient to sustain the competitiveness
of an organization. That is, focusing on character strengths, positive virtues, and other rela-
tively stable personality traits is less cost-effective in today’s business environment charac-
terized by high turnover rates and an emphasis on continuous learning and development of
employees and organizations. In fact, there has been little personality research in HRD
because it cannot be easily developed. In addition to the previous personal characteristics,
we also propose that future HRD researchers use more state-like (rather than trait-like)
positive capacities that are open to development and improvement using relatively brief
training programs, on-the-job activities, and short micro-interventions (Luthans, Avey,
Avolio, Norman, & Combs, 2006). One such construct is psychological capital that is
defined as a higher order positive construct comprised of the four-facet constructs of self-
efficacy, optimism, hope, and resiliency (Luthans et al., 2007).
Organizational Context
Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, and Herron (1996) and Woodman et al. (1993) sug-
gested a number of characteristics in an attempt to determine what creates a climate
that supports creativity. Previous research has examined the influence of organiza-
tional support on creativity (e.g., Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-McIntyre, 2003;
Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Joo, 2007; Joo et al., 2012; Jung, & Chow, & Wu, 2003;
Yoon et al., 2010; Zhou & George, 2001). Although organizational contexts impose a
special set of conditions on creativity, there still is a lack of empirical studies. Of the
50 studies we reviewed, seven studies examined perceived organizational support or
organizational culture as a distal antecedent of employee creativity.
Joo et al. 405
At the organizational level, we recommend the use of organizational learning cul-

ture as one of the key contextual components encouraging employee creativity. By
definition, a learning organization refers to “an organization skilled at creating, acquir-
ing, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowl-
edge and insights” (Garvin, 1993, p. 80). Stressing a system’s perspective, Senge
(1990) depicted learning organizations as places “where people continually expand
their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns
of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are
continually learning how to learn together” (p. 1). Thus a learning organization
involves an environment in which organizational learning is structured so that team-
work, collaboration, creativity, and knowledge processes have a collective meaning
and value (Confessore & Kops, 1998).
The concepts of organizational learning culture and/or organizational learning pro-
cess have received increasing attention in the field of HRD, in general, and organiza-
tion development (OD), in particular. One of the most critical issues, however, has
been the lack of practical and validated measurement tools (Holton, Bates, & Ruona,
2000; Song, Joo, & Chermack, 2009; Yang, Watkins, & Marsick, 2004) until the
dimensions of learning organization questionnaire (DLOQ) was developed (Yang
et al., 2004). Watkins and Marsick’s (1997) framework for a learning organization
served as another theoretical base for this study. They identified seven action impera-
tives for a learning organization: (a) create continuous learning opportunities; (b) pro-
mote inquiry and dialogue; (c) encourage collaboration and team learning; (d) establish
systems to capture and share learning; (e) empower people to have a collective
vision; (f) connect the organization to the environment, and (g) use leaders who model
and support learning at the individual, team, and organization levels.
Social Context
To date, most research has focused on coworkers’ influence on creativity (e.g., Alge,
Ballinger, Tangirala, & Oakley, 2006; Farmer et al., 2003; George & Zhou, 2001,
2007; Gong, Cheung, Wang, & Huang, 2012; Mathisen, 2011; Tsai, Chi, Grandey, &
Fung, 2011; Zhou & George, 2001) and leaders’ influence on creativity (e.g., Amabile,
Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; Cheung & Wong, 2011; Jaussie & Dionne, 2003;
Jung et al., 2003; Gong et al., 2009; Gumusluoglu & Ilseb, 2009; Joo, 2007; Joo et al.,
2012; Kim et al., 2010, Liao et al., 2010; Mathisen, 2011; Pieterse, Knippenberg,
Chippers, & Stam, 2010; Rego et al., 2012; Shin & Zhou, 2003, 2007; Sun, Zhang, Qi,
Chen, 2012; Volmer, Spurk, & Niessen, 2012; Wang & Cheng, 2009; Zhang et al.,
2011; Zhang & Bartol, 2010; Zhou & George, 2001). More specifically, about 40% of
the empirical articles that we reviewed examined the leadership issue in creativity
research.
The relationship between managers and employees is critical for the social context,
when working with employees and when developing their skills and knowledge for the
purpose of enhancing employees’ creativity. Since most organizations are structured
around teams, the role of leaders has changed from traditional hierarchical directors to
being supportive and noncontrolling. Employees who feel micromanaged soon lose
interest in their jobs (Csikszentmihalyi, 2003). Conversely, if leaders are supportive,
creative activity is more likely to occur (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). We suggest the use
of leader–member exchange (LMX), transformational leadership, and authentic lead-
ership for the constructs that can positively influence employee creativity.
LMX theory was originally proposed by Graen and his colleagues and focused on
the social exchange processes embedded in the leader–subordinate relationship
(Dansereau, Cashman, & Graen, 1973; Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen,
1976). LMX quality refers to the quality of the interpersonal exchange relationship
between an employee and his or her supervisor (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). LMX the-
ory conceptualizes the process that is centered on the interactions between leaders and
followers. Unique working relationships are formed between leaders and each of their
subordinates. These social exchanges can be further described in terms of three stages:
(a) initial testing, including evaluations of motives, attitudes, resources, and role
expectations; (b) development of mutual trust, loyalty, and respect; and (c) develop-
ment of mutual commitment to organizational/unit goals (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
Transformational leadership can be defined as a set of behaviors including (a)
idealized influence, (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d)
individualized consideration that can transform followers’ aspirations, identities,
needs, preferences, and values to a higher level (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Transformational
leadership is considered for leaders across situations, rather than being thought of as
situation-specific such as those behaviors associated with the implementation of a
particular change (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008).
Authentic leadership is defined as a process that draws from positive psychological
capacities and a positive organizational context, which results in greater self-aware-
ness, relational transparency, internalized moral perspectives, and balance processing
of information on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-
development (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008).
To describe these four dimensions, similar words are commonly used: honesty, integ-
rity, fairness, strengths and weaknesses, sharing, true thoughts, openness, and truthful-
ness (Gardner, Avolio, Luthan, May, Walumbwa, 2005; Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang,
2005; Kernis & Goldman, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Authentic leaders who are
more fair and supportive are likely to enhance the workplace climate for creativity.
Job Context
As Drucker (1988) put it, organizations are shifting to being information-based or self-
governing units of knowledge specialists. Knowledge work is characterized by “unpre-
dictable, multidisciplinary, and non-repetitive tasks with evolving, long term goals
which, due to their inherent ambiguity and complexity, require collaborative effort in
order to take advantage of multiple viewpoints” (Janz, Colquitt, & Noe, 1997, pp. 882-
883). Complex jobs demand creative outcomes by encouraging employees to focus
simultaneously on multiple dimensions of their work, whereas highly simple or rou-
tine jobs may inhibit such a focus (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). In line with goal
Joo et al. 407
setting theory, when jobs are complex and demanding (i.e., high on challenge, auton-
omy, and complexity), individuals are more likely to focus all of their attention and
efforts on their jobs, making them more persistent and more likely to consider different
alternatives, which should result in creative outcomes (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). For
the constructs in the job context, we suggest the use of the job characteristics model,
psychological empowerment, and job engagement.
Job design has long been considered to be an important contributor to employees’
intrinsic motivation, attitudes, and creative performance at work (Amabile, 1988;
Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Kanter, 1988; Shalley et al., 2004; West & Farr, 1989).
The job characteristics model consists of five factors: variety, identity, significance,
autonomy, and feedback (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). A
meta-analysis of the job design literature concluded that employees working on com-
plex jobs are more satisfied and internally motivated than employees working on jobs
that are relatively simple (Fried & Ferris, 1987). When jobs are complex and challeng-
ing, individuals are likely to be excited about their work activities and interested in
completing these activities in the absence of external controls or constraints (Hackman
& Oldham, 1980; Oldham & Cummings, 1996).
Several studies examined psychological empowerment as a predictor of employee
creativity (e.g., Alge et al., 2006; Gumusluoglu & Ilseb, 2009; Jung et al., 2003;
Pieterse et al., 2010; Sun et al., 2012; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Psychological empower-
ment refers to intrinsic task motivation manifested in a set of four cognitive dimen-
sions reflecting an individual’s orientation to his or her work role: meaning,
competence, self-determination, and impact (Spreitzer, 1995). Rather than being ante-
cedents or consequences of one another, the four dimensions represent unique facets
of the overall construct of empowerment. Since job design can influence psychologi-
cal empowerment, we put it in the category of job context. Since psychological
empowerment reflects the changing nature of jobs in a knowledge-based economy
very well, we expect that the use of psychological empowerment will increase in the
future, especially for the study of knowledge workers.
Employee engagement has become the key concern of management and I/O psy-
chology scholars because it is one of the most frequently used variables for satisfac-
tion, change, creativity, innovation, and performance (Joo & McLean, 2006). Recently,
interest on employee engagement has drastically gained popularity in the HRD field
(Chalofsky & Krishna, 2009; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Shuck, 2011; Shuck, Reio, &
Rocco, 2011; Shuck & Wollard, 2010; Zigarmi, Nimon, Houson, Witt, & Diehl, 2009).
A special issue of the journal, Advances in Developing Human Resources, shed light
on employee engagement in 2011. In spite of the growing concern for employee
engagement, little empirical research about employee engagement can be found in
HRD journals with an exception of Shuck et al.’s (2011) study. Engaged employees
feel fully involved and enthusiastic about their jobs and organizations so they are will-
ing and able to contribute to organizational success. According to Kahn (1990), who
first conceptualized engagement, it can be defined as “harnessing of organization
members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express them-
selves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performance” (p. 693).
Some have pointed out the similarity with job satisfaction and organizational commit-
ment, but employee engagement is additionally capturing employees’ energy or enthu-
siasm for work, mental resilience at work, and cognitive involvement in their roles at
work (Atwater & Brett, 2006; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-roma, & Bakker, 2002).
Subsequent to Kahn (1990, 1992), a number of authors have found the relationship
between employee engagement and positive organizational outcomes such as organi-
zational and financial success (e.g., Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Salanova, Agut,
& Peiro, 2005). Despite the intuitive link, little research is done on the relationship
between engagement and creativity. More rigorous empirical studies examining the
relationship between engagement and creativity are recommended in the future.
In summary, this conceptual framework represents only an attempt to portray the
overall relationships among the factors related to employee creativity. One contribu-
tion of this model is its integration of useful theory and research from related litera-
ture, such as organizational learning, personality, leadership, job design, and
employee learning and development. Given the increasing research on employee
creativity, this model will hopefully stimulate more empirical creativity research in
the field of HRD.
Discussion
Recommendations for future research were proposed in the previous section. In this
section, we discuss the implications for creativity research in the field of HRD. We
introduce Person-Environment (PE) Fit theory for designing future creativity research.
Then we point out the potential methodological issues in creativity research, including
measures, sampling, analytical methods as well as the issues of common method
biases and cross sectional design. We also briefly discuss the cultural issue.
Theoretical Implications
The contribution of this study to theory lies in the fact that it takes an integrative
approach encompassing both personal and contextual factors and explores not only the
proximal antecedents but also the distal antecedents introducing new constructs in
creativity research. As Lewin (1947) suggested more than 60 years ago, human behav-
ior can be explained as a function of the combination or interaction of one’s personal-
ity and how one perceives his or her environment (Burke, 2002). A majority (70%) of
the research on creativity in organizations has simultaneously investigated personal
and contextual antecedents of employee creativity for the last 10 years or so, instead
of a piecemeal fashion. Thus one of the most significant contributions of this study is
that this article proposes a comprehensive framework of research in HRD based on an
integrative literature review of the extant empirical research.
Another significance of this study lies in its attempt to find antecedents of employee
creativity, including the distal antecedents as well as the proximal antecedents.
Previous studies have investigated the relationships between proximal antecedents
(e.g., LMX, transformational leadership, coworkers, job complexity) and employee
Joo et al. 409
creativity in organizations (i.e., Baer, Oldham, & Cummings, 2003; Farmer et al.,
2003; Ford & Gioia, 2000; Jaussi & Dionnne, 2003; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Zhou, 2003;
Zhou & George, 2001; see Table 2). However, only seven studies have explored distal
antecedents such as perceived organizational support or organizational learning cul-
ture. We hope that the current study will stimulate more research on organizational
culture as a distal antecedent of creativity in the future.
In addition, we suggest to use Person-Environment (PE) fit theory for future cre-
ativity research. With its origin in the interactionalist theory, PE fit theory proposes
that it needs to match personal characteristics with their corresponding environmental
characteristics (Ostroff & Schulte, 2007). PE fit can be defined as “the congruence,
match, similarity, or correspondence between the person and the environment”
(Edward & Shipp, 2007, p. 209). The basic premise of PE fit theory is that when char-
acteristics of people and the work environment (or contextual factors) are aligned or
fit together, positive outcomes for individuals such as satisfaction, commitment, lower
turnover intentions, performance, and creativity will be enhanced. Different conceptu-
alizations and categorizations of the P and E fit constructs have been offered. On the P
side, types of variables that have been considered includes personality-based and per-
son-centered attributes such as traits, needs, interests, preferences, values, and percep-
tions; knowledge, skills, and abilities; and demographic and background characteristics
such as race, gender, and education (e.g., Kristof, 1996). On the E side, the compo-
nents of the organizational system such as business culture, strategy, structure, job and
work processes, and leadership are the major elements that define the E in PE fit
(Ostroff & Schulte, 2007).
The fit or congruence between personal and contextual factors is important in influ-
encing the occurrence of creative performance. Most studies on creativity (George &
Zhou, 2001; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Zhou, 2003; Zhou &
George, 2001) have focused on one or more fits among person and environment. We
suggest that future creativity research focus on three fits: person–organization (PO) fit,
person–group/social (PG) fit, and person–job (PJ) fit. More specific, for example, cre-
ativity researchers can examine the effects of the fit between learning goal orientation
and organizational learning culture (PO fit); the fit between proactive personality and
transformational leadership (PG fit); the fit between psychological capital and psycho-
logical empowerment (PJ fit).
Implications for HRD

While traditional HRD has mainly focused on individual training, HRD has enlarged
its territory to individual development and organizational learning and development
over time (Joo & McLean, 2006). In addition to training for basic skills of individuals,
recently HRD practitioners have paid more attention to employee development pro-
grams, such as on-the-job experience, coaching, mentoring, management develop-
ment, and career development. We believe that learning and development, job redesign,
leadership, and organizational culture that were discussed in this study are all in the
domain of HRD. In a broader sense, therefore, creativity in organizations is a critical
agenda for HRD. Despite the significance for organizational success, creativity in
organizations is a relatively unexplored topic in the field of HRD. Thus we believe that
creativity should be included in the pool of dependent variables of HRD, along with
learning, performance, satisfaction, productivity, and effectiveness.
To illustrate the implications of this study to HRD practice, first, job design that
promotes an autonomous and challenging job encourages creativity. The role of HRD
professionals is to support managers to consider objective job characteristics as they
differentiate between jobs. The key is to provide employees with jobs that are chal-
lenging enough but not so overstimulating that employees feel overwhelmed and
unable to break out of old ways of doing their work (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). In addi-
tion, the design needs to align with wider HR systems if it is to be successfully imple-
mented or sustained over the longer term (Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997).
Supportive leaders can enhance employee creativity. One of the most popular prac-
tices in HRD today is coaching that is offered by internal and external HRD profes-
sionals. Leadership development is essential in preparing leaders to become coaches.
As for the time and resources constraint, managers may coach only those who show
high potential for development and advancement and those who are having problems,
rather than coaching all employees (McLean, 2006).
Although leadership can play a pivotal role in employee creativity, it is contingent
on organizational culture (Watkins & Marsick, 2003). Amabile (1995) suggested that
managers and HRD professionals can foster creativity in organizations by eliminating
the environmental obstacles (e.g., the turf battles, the caustic reactions to new ideas,
the lack of commitment to innovation), creating an environment with an orientation
toward innovation and risk taking from the highest levels of top management on down
and with open communication and collaboration across the organization. Thus, orga-
nizations have an incentive to create environments conducive to high-quality relation-
ships by encouraging an organizational culture. Without such a culture, the efforts
invested in learning and development for both the individual and group are
suboptimized.
HRD professionals can support managers by providing relevant practices and ser-
vices. However, changing one factor alone (e.g., having supportive supervisors) will
not help creativity, if other factors are not in place (e.g., a supportive organizational
culture). For example, there might be no point in investing great effort in recruiting
and developing creative individuals if the environment does not allow, encourage, or
support these behaviors. Therefore, each HRD practice should be delivered and
applied in a concerted way with a holistic perspective. That is, enhancing creativity of
employees will require an integrated strategy, incorporating elements of culture man-
agement, leadership development, training/learning, and job design. By adopting an
integrated strategy to improve the creativity of their employees, managers and HRD
professionals can help their employees win the race of sustained competitive advan-
tage. This is by no means an easy feat, which is why organizations that are successful
in building this type of organization are likely to have a sustainable competitive
advantage.
Joo et al. 411
Potential Issues of Creativity Research

In this section, we discuss the potential methodological issues in empirical creativity
research, including the issues of common method biases and cross-sectional design as
well as the issues of measures and analytical techniques. We also briefly discuss the
cultural issue in creativity research.
First, most empirical research confines itself to a cross-sectional survey method
that leaves room for speculation with regard to causality among the variables.
Longitudinal research that would substantiate the conclusions is recommended. More
specifically, there should be more longitudinal studies with comparison groups, so that
causality can be fully established.
Second, relying on self-reported surveys, a number of creativity studies have a pos-
sible common method bias. Because of the perceptual nature of the data, there is the
possibility of a percept-percept bias. However, this type of bias does not threaten the
relationship among the antecedents and employee creativity, when the supervisors
assess the outcome variable. To solve the limitations above, methodologically, research
needs to be based on objective indicators and multiple sources. As Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) suggested, there could be a couple of statisti-
cal remedies. One is the Harmon’s one-factor test that is used to test the common
method variance issues among the collected data through a factor analysis. The other
analysis is the single-common-method-factor approach, which is designed to partition
the responses’ variance to a focal measure into three categories: trait, method, and
random error components.
Third, with regard to the measure, George and Zhou’s (2001) 13-item scale is one
of the most widely used measures for employee creativity. In addition to employee
self-responses, supervisors who are familiar with the employees’ work behavior need
to be asked to indicate the creative behaviors of the employee they are rating. What
makes it more difficult is that the matched ratio of dyadic data could be as low as 20%.
To eliminate single-source bias and to increase validity, however, having supervisors
rate the creativity of their employees is most commonly used in field studies (George
& Zhou, 2001; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Shin & Zhou, 2003;
Tierney et al., 1999; Zhou, 2003; Zhou & George, 2001).
Fourth, creativity may be stimulated or hindered by cultural values, such as world-
view and the value placed on conformity or tradition (Lubart, 1999). Creativity theo-
ries and models have been developed primarily in Western cultures. According to
Lubart, “The Western definition of creativity as a product-oriented, originality-based
phenomenon can be compared with an Eastern view of creativity as a phenomenon of
expressing an inner truth in a new way or of self-growth” (1999, p. 347). More research
in international and cross-cultural context is needed in the future.
Fifth, in line with the above, there may be limitations in the components of the
instrument, as most measures used in a creativity study are developed in Western con-
text. Those measures may contain culturally sensitive items that may not be detected
in spite of the efforts to validate them in a specific cultural setting. According to
Hofstede (1980), East Asian countries such as Japan and Korea are known for their
collectivistic culture with strong power distance and high uncertainty avoidance. For
example, Korean employees are likely to have a less proactive personality than those
in the Western culture, because proactive personality has to do with risk-taking and
initiative (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant, 2000). To increase generalizability, more
studies in various culture and industries representing diverse demographic groups are
needed.
Last but not least, future research that includes group levels of analysis is needed to
understand more fully the role of team–member interactions and group process on
empowerment and outcomes. A group’s creative behavior is influenced by cohesive
group characteristics that support open interactions, diverse viewpoints, and playful
surroundings (Amabile, 1998) and, perhaps, the individual creative behavior and per-
formance of its members. Particularly, this is needed for the organizations in a collec-
tivistic culture.
Conclusion
In this turbulent, knowledge-based economy, creativity has become one of the most
important sources of sustained competitive advantage for organizations as well as for
individuals. Substantial evidence suggests that employee creativity makes an important
contribution to organizational innovation, competitiveness, and survival. We briefly dis-
cussed the history and transition of creativity research. Based on the review of the extant
empirical studies published since 2001, this article proposes an integrative conceptual
framework. The main purpose of this study was to stimulate creativity research in the
field of HRD. Learning and development, job redesign, leadership, and organizational
culture that we discussed in this study are all in the domain of HRD. In a broader sense,
therefore, creativity in organizations is a critical agenda for HRD. Finally, we hope that
this study will stimulate not only a more integrative approach to empirical research on
creativity but also more international and cross-cultural studies in the future.
Authors’ Note
This article is the authors’ original work, which has not been published elsewhere and is not
under consideration for publication elsewhere at the time it is submitted.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: The third author was supported by the National Science
Foundation of China (NSFC Projects. 70725005, 70890081 and 71172009).
Joo et al. 413
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the empirical research analysis.
Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G. A., Tangirala, S., & Oakley, J. L. (2006). Information privacy in
organizations: Empowering creative and extra-role performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 221-232.
Amablie, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-168.
Amabile, T. M. (1995). Discovering the unknowable, managing the unmanageable. In C. M. Ford
& D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions and real world
voices (pp. 77-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity during
downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 630-640.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The creative environment scales: Work environ-
ment inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 231-252.
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.
Atwater, L. E., & Brett, J. F. (2006). 360-degree feedback to leaders: Does it relate to changes
in employee attitudes? Group Organization Management, 31, 578-600.
*Baer, M., Leenders, R. T. A. J., Oldham, G. R., & Vadera, A. (2010). Win or lose the battle
for creativity: The power and perils of intergroup competition. Academy of Management
Journal, 53, 827-845.
*Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (2003). Rewarding creativity: When does it really
matter? Leadership Quarterly, 14, 569-586.
*Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., Jacobson, G. C., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2008). The personality com-
position of teams and creativity: The moderating role of team creative confidence. Journal
of Creative Behavior, 42, 255-282.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,
17, 99-120.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A
measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118.
*Bechtoldt, M. N., De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Choi, H. (2010). Motivated infor-
mation processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Journal of Personality and Social
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). Adaptive guidance: Enhancing self-regulation, knowl-
edge, and performance in technology-based training. Personnel Psychology, 55, 267-306.
Boden, M. A. (1991). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. New York, NY: Basic.
Burke, W. W. (2002). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chalofsky, N., & Krishna, V. (2009). Meaningfulness, commitment, and engagement: The
intersection of a deeper level of intrinsic motivation. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 11, 168-188.
Chen, C.-J., Shih, H.-A., & Yeh, Y.-C. (2011). Individual initiative, skill variety, and creativity:
The moderating role of knowledge specificity and creative resources. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 22, 3447-3461.
Cheung, F. Y., & Wong, C.-S. (2011). Transformational leadership, leader support, and
employee creativity. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 32, 656-672.
*Cohen-Meitar, R., Carmeli, A., & Waldman, D. A. (2009). Linking meaningfulness in the
workplace to employee creativity: The intervening role of organizational identification and
positive psychological experiences. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 361-375.
Confessore, S. J., & Kops, W. J. (1998). Self-directed learning and the learning organization:
Examining the connection between the individual and the learning environment. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 9, 365-375.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435-462.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and psychology of discovery and invention. New
York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good business: Leadership, flow, and the making of meaning.
New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzel, J. W. (1988). Creativity and problem finding. In F. H. Farley
& R. W. Neperud (Eds.), The foundations of aesthetics, art, and art education (pp. 91-106).
New York, NY: Praeger.
Dansereau, F., Cashman, J., & Graen, G. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity theory as
complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among
managers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10, 184-200.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad approach to leadership within
formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.
Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in
organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 286-307.
Drucker, P. (1988, January-February). The coming of the new organizations. Harvard Business
Review, 45-53.
Drucker, P. (1992, September-October). The new society of organizations. Harvard Business
Review, 95-104.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personal-
ity. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Edwards, J. R., & Shipp, A. J. (2007). The relationship between person-environment fit and
outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.),
Perspectives on organizational fit (pp. 209-258). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Egan, T. M. (2005). Factors influencing individual creativity in the workplace: An examination
of quantitative empirical research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 160-181.
Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: An attempt to bridge divergent traditions.
Psychological Inquiry, 4, 238-246.
Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An
application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 618-630.
Farr, J. L., Hofmann, D. A., & Ringenbach, K. L. (1993). Goal orientation and action control
theory: Implications for industrial and organizational psychology, in Cooper, C. L. and
Robertson, I. T. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology
(pp.193-232). New York, NY: Wiley.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290-309.
Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1998). Differential effects of learner effort and goal orientation on
two learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51, 397-420.
Joo et al. 415
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work, leisure, com-
munity, and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Florida, R. (2005). The flight of the creative class: The new global competition for talent. New
York, NY: HarperCollins.
*Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 49, 1016-1030.
Ford, C. M. (1995). Creativity is a mystery: Clues from the investigators’ notebooks. In C. M. Ford
& D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions and real world
voices (pp. 12-49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ford, C. M., & Gioia, D. A. (1995). Guidelines for creative action taking in organizations. In
C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions and
real world voices (pp. 355-366). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ford, C. M., & Gioia, D. A. (2000). Factors influencing creativity in the domain of managerial
decision making. Journal of Management, 26, 705-732.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A review and
meta analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287-322.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). “Can
you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development.
Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343-372.
Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78-91.
George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 439-477.
*George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are
related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 513-524.
*George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of
positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy
of Management Journal, 50, 605-622.
*Gong, Y., Cheung, S. Y., Wang, M., & Huang, J. C. (2012). Unfolding the proactive process
for creativity: Integration of the employee proactivity, information exchange, and psycho-
logical safety perspectives. Journal of Management, 38, 1611-1633.
*Gong, Y., Huang, J., & Farh, J. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational lead-
ership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy.
Academy of Management Journal, 52, 765-778.
Graen, G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette
(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago,
IL: Rand McNally.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development
of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-
level multi domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 210-247.
*Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic
and prosocial motivations, perspective-taking, and creativity. Academy of Management
Journal, 54, 73-79.
Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organiza-
tional innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62, 461-473.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279.
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and
change leadership on employees’ commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 93, 346-357.
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
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holton, E. F., Bates, R. A., & Ruona, W. E. A. (2000). Development of a generalized learning
transfer system inventory. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 333-360.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis?
Journal of Management, 23, 409-473.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic
well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373-394.
Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The
role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables.
Personnel Psychology, 50, 877-905.
Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional leader
behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 475-498.
Joo, B. (2007). The impact of contextual and personal characteristics on employee creativity
in Korean firms (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (Publication No. AAT 3263468)
Joo, B., & McLean, G. N. (2006). Best employer studies: A conceptual model from a literature
review and a case study. Human Resource Development Review, 5, 228-257.
*Joo, B.-K., Song, J. H., Lim, D. H., & Yoon, S. W. (2012). Team creativity: The effects of
perceived learning culture, developmental feedback, team cohesion, and their interactions.
International Journal of Training and Development, 16(2), 77-91.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem,
neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core
construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693-710.
Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhanc-
ing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. Leadership
Quarterly, 14, 525-544.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be full there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45,
321-349.
Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social condi-
tions for innovation in organization. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 169-211). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2005). From thought and experience to behavior and inter-
personal relationships: A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity. In A. Tesser, J.
V. Wood & D. Stapel (Eds.), On building, defending and regulating the self: A psychologi-
cal perspective (pp. 31-52). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Joo et al. 417
*Kim, T. Y., Hon, A. H. Y., & Crant, M. J. (2009). Proactive personality, employee creativity,
and newcomer outcomes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24,
93-103.
*Kim, T. Y., Hon, A. H. Y., & Lee, D. R. (2010). Proactive personality and employee creativity:
The effects of job creativity requirement and supervisor support for creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 22(1), 37-45.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2004). Blue ocean strategy. Harvard Business Review, 82(10),
76-84.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy: From theory to practice. California
Management Review, 47(3), 105-121.
King, N. (1995). Individual creativity and organizational innovation: An uncertain link. In
C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions
and real world voices (pp. 82-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualization,
measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 143-153.
*Liao, H., Liu, D., & Loi, R. (2010). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A social
cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on cre-
ativity. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1090-1109.
Lubart, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity
(pp. 339-350). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S., & Combs, G. (2006). PsyCap development:
Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 387-393.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J.
E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241-258). San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital: Developing the
human competitive edge. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee enagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1, 3-30.
*Mathisen, G. E. (2011). Organizational antecedents of creative self-efficacy. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 20, 185-195.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In
R. Hogan, J. Johnson & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825-847).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
McLean, G. N. (2006). Organization development: Principles, processes, performance. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Morris, M. W., & Leung, K. (2010). Creativity east and west: Perspectives and parallels.
Management and Organization Review, 6, 313-327.
Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation.
Human Resource Management Review, 10, 313-351.
Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Maher, M. A., Costanza, D. P., & Supinski, E. P. (1997).
Process based measures of creative problem solving skills: 4. Category combination.
Creativity Research Journal, 10, 59-71.
Mumford, M., & Gustafson, S. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and inno-
vation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27-43.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people:
Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705-750.
Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity

(pp. 392-430). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity and proactive
behaviour: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 543-565.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors
at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634.
Ostroff, C., & Schulte, M. (2007). Multiple perspectives of fit in organizations across levels of
analysis. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit (pp. 3-69).
New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice:
Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). “That’s not my job”: Developing flexible
employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 899-929.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and
classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people. California Management Review,
36(2), 9-28.
*Pieterse, A. N., Knippenberg, D. V., Chippers, M., & Stam, A. D. (2010). Transformational
and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological
empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 609-623.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended rem-
edies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business
Review, 68(3), 79-91.
Raja, U., & John, G. (2010). The joint effects of personality and job scope on in-role perfor-
mance, citizenship behaviors and creativity. Human Relations, 63, 981-1005.
*Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & Cunha, M. P. (2012). Authentic leadership promot-
ing employees’ psychological capital and creativity. Journal of Business Research, 65,
429-437.
Robinson, A. G., & Stern, S. (1997). Corporate creativity: How innovation and improvement
actually happen. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Sagiv, L., Arieli, S., Goldenberg, J., & Goldschmidt, A. (2010). Structure and freedom in cre-
ativity: The interplay between externally imposed structure and personal cognitive style.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 1086-1110.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiro, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work
engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service cli-
mate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1217-1227.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement
of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of
individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580-607.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on
individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179-185.
Joo et al. 419
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and
contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 33-53.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength
work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual
characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management,
30, 933-958.
*Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity:
Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703-714.
*Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to
creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709-1721.
Shuck, B. (2011). Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: An integrative litera-
ture review. Human Resource Development Review, 10, 304-328.
Shuck, B., Reio, T. G., & Rocco, T. S. (2011). Employee engagement: An examination
of antecedent and outcome variables. Human Resource Development International, 14,
427-445.
Shuck, M. B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the
foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89-110.
Simmons, A. L., & Ren, R. (2009). The influence of goal orientation and risk on creativity.
Creativity Research Journal, 21, 400-408.
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects.
American Psychologist, 55, 151-158.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implemen-
tation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management,
39, 684-708.
Song, J. H., Joo, B.-K., & Chermack, T. J. (2009). The dimensions of learning organization ques-
tionnaire (DLOQ): A validation study in Korean context. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 20(1), 43-64.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Construct definition,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Sun, L.-Y., Zhang, Z., Qi, J., & Chen, Z. X. (2012). Empowerment and creativity: A cross-level
investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 55-65.
Sweetman, D., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Luthans, B. C. (2011). Relationship between posi-
tive psychological capital and creative performance. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, 28(1), 4-13.
*Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative
resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315-330.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee
creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591-620.
Tsai, W.-C., Chi, N.-W., Grandey, A. A., & Fung, S.-C. (2011). Positive group affective tone
and team creativity: Negative group affective tone and team trust as boundary conditions,
Journal of Organizational Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/job.775
Unsworth, K. L., & Parker, S. K. (2003). Proactivity and innovation: Promoting a new work-
force for the new workplace. In D. Holman, T. D. Wall, C. W. Clegg, P. Sparrow &
A. Howard (Eds.). The new workplace: A guide to the human impact of modern working
practices (pp. 175-196). Chicester, UK: Wiley.
*Volmer, J., Spurk, D., & Niessen, D. (2012). Leader-member exchange (LMX), job autonomy,
and creative work environment. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 456-465.
*Wang, A. C., & Cheng, B. S. (2009). When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity?
The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 31, 106-121.
Waight, C. L. (2005). Exploring connections between human resource development and creativ-
ity. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 151-159.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008).
Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of
Management, 34, 89-126.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1997). Dimensions of the learning organization. Warwick, RI:
Partners for the Learning Organization.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (Eds.). (2003). Make learning count! Diagnosing the learning
culture in organizations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5, 132-151.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1989). Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives. Social
Behaviour, 4, 15-30.
West, M., & Farr, J. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. West & J. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and
creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 3-13). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Williams, W. M., & Yang, L. T. (1999). Organizational creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 373-391). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Woodman, R. W. (1995). Managing creativity. In C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative
action in organizations: Ivory tower visions and real world voices (pp. 60-64). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational
creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293-321.
*Wu, C., McMullen, J. S., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X. (2008). The influence of leader regulatory
focus on employee creativity. Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 587-602.
Yang, B., Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. J. (2004). The construct of the learning organization:
Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
15(1), 31-55.
*Yoon, S. W., Song, J. H., Lim, D. H., & Joo, B.-K. (2010). Structural determinants of team
performance: The mutual influences of learning culture, creativity, and knowledge. Human
Resource Development International, 13, 249-264.
*Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., & Wang, D. X. (2011). Leadership behavior and group creativity
in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 851-862.
Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation:
Interactive effects of creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 261-276.
Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of
supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 413-422.
*Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the
expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682-69
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2003). Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional
intelligence. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 545-568.
Joo et al. 421
*Zhou, Q., Hirst, G., & Shipton, H. (2011). Context matters: Combined influence of participa-
tion and intellectual stimulation on the promotion focus-employee creativity relationship.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 894-909.
*Zhou, Q., Hirst, G., & Shipton, H. (2012). Promoting creativity at work: The role of problem-
solving demand. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(1), 56-80.
*Zhou, J., Shin, S. J., Brass, D. J., Choi, J., & Zhang, Z.-X. (2009). Social networks, personal
values, and creativity: Evidence for curvilinear and interaction effects. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 1544-1552.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and direc-
tions for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 12,
165-217.
Zhang, X. M., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity:
The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 107-128.
Zigarmi, D., Nimon, K., Houson, D., Witt, D., & Diehl, J. (2009). Beyong engagement: Toward
a framework and operational definition for employee work passion. Human Resouece
Development Review, 8, 300-326.
Author Biographies
Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo is an assistant professor of human resources management at Winona
State University. He received his PhD in human resource development and an MA in human
resources and industrial relations from the University of Minnesota. His current research inter-
ests include positive organizational behavior, organizational creativity, leadership/employee
development, and international HR/OD. He can be reached at bjoo@winona.edu.
Gary N. McLean, EdD, PhD (Hon), is president of McLean Global Consulting, Inc., a family
business. As an OD practitioner, he works extensively globally. He also teaches regularly at
universities in Thailand, Mexico, and France. He was formerly a senior professor and executive
director of international human resource development programs at Texas A&M University and
is professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota. He has served as president of the Academy
of Human Resource Development and the International Management Development Association.
His research interests are broad, focusing primarily on organization development and national
and international HRD. He can be reached at gary.mclean@mcleanglobal.com.
Baiyin Yang is a professor and chair of human resources and organizational behavior at
Tsinghua University (China). His research interests include adult and organizational learning,
program planning and evaluation, power and influence tactics, cross-cultural studies of learning
and organizational behavior, and quantitative research methods. He can be reached at yangby@
sem.tsinghua.edu.cn.

Jurnal SDM 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurnal SDM 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurnal SDM 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

481462

Integrative Literature Review

and a Conceptual Framework

Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo1, Gary N. McLean2, and Baiyin Yang3

1Winona State University, Winona, MN, USA

Problem Statement and Research Purpose

Transition of Creativity Research

Traditionally, most studies on creativity have focused on personal characteristics,

Table 1. Definitions of Creativity.

Three Perspectives of Creativity Research

Table 2. Summary of Empirical Studies on Creativity From an Integrative Perspective.

George and Zhou Openness to Feedback valence Individual JAP

Author(s) Personal factors Contextual factors Level of analysis Journal

Simmons and Ren Goal orientation Individual CRJ

Author(s) Personal factors Contextual factors Level of analysis Journal

Cheung and Wong Transformation leadership Individual LODJ

Contextual characteristics view. Although it is undeniable that creativity stems from

Integrative view. Theories have suggested that a confluence of environment-centered

Empirical Research on Creativity since 2001

A Framework for Creativity Research in HRD

characteristics (e.g., learning/training of content knowledge, creative process skills,

At the organizational level, we recommend the use of organizational learning cul-

Implications for HRD

Potential Issues of Creativity Research

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity

You might also like