A Social Exchange Model of Creativity

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
7th April, 2005

Date:___________________
Shalini Khazanchi
I, _________________________________________________________,
hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of:
Doctorate of Philosophy
in:
Business Administration
It is entitled:
A "Social Exchange" Model of Creativity
This work and its defense approved by:
Suzanne S. Masterson
Chair: _______________________________
M. Ann Welsh
_______________________________
David C. Lundgren
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
A Social Exchange Model of Creativity
A Dissertation submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the

University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctorate of Philosophy
2005
By
Shalini Khazanchi
Advisory Committee:
Professor Suzanne S. Masterson, Chair

Professor M. Ann Welsh
Professor David Lundgren
ABSTRACT
In todays business environment, creativity has become essential for gaining and
sustaining competitive advantage for organizations. As such, researchers and practitioners alike
have been interested in understanding ways to enhance creativity. In todays highly interactive
work environment social relationships have become an important feature of organizational life.
Yet there has been little empirical research that focuses on the relational environment and its
impact on creativity. To fill this gap in the literature, this study develops and empirically tests a
social exchange model of creativity, proposing that employees perceptions of the relational
environment (i.e., fairness and trust) will influence their social exchange relationships, which in
turn will affect creativity-relevant behaviors, and ultimately, creativity. The model
simultaneously proposes and tests these linkages for both organizational and supervisory levels.
To test the model, the data were collected from 205 employees and their supervisors at a
large chemical engineering plant, where creativity is an explicitly stated goal. Employees
reported on their perceptions of organizational fairness and trust, supervisory fairness and trust,
perceived organizational support, and leader member exchange. Supervisors provided
information on employees creativity-relevant behaviors (information sharing, risk taking, social
loafing, and political tactics), and creativity.
Structural equation modeling was used to analyze the data and test the social exchange
model of creativity. The results revealed support for several hypotheses. At the organizational
level, employees perceptions of procedural and informational justice were significantly related
to organizational trust, which in turn was significantly related to perceived organizational
support. Furthermore, perceived organizational support was marginally related to two types of
political tactics, exchange and upward appeal, which were not found to be related to creativity.
At the supervisory level, employees perceptions of supervisory distributive justice and
interpersonal justice were significantly, and supervisory informational justice was marginally,
related to supervisory trust, which in turn was significantly related to leader member exchange.
Finally, leader member exchange was significantly related to information sharing and social
loafing, both of which were significantly related to creativity.
Overall, these results show that a fair and trusting environment can be important for
fostering stronger exchange relationships, and hence, creativity. These results have important
implications for both research and practice.

Copyright by
Shalini Khazanchi
2005
DEDICATION
There are several people without whom this dream would have remained just that-a dream. I
dedicate this dissertation to them.
To Suzanne Masterson, for being a great mentor or as I often say, the best advisor. Without her
continuous support, guidance and of course her remarkable patience with all my mistakes, none
of this would have been possible. She continues to be a source of inspiration for me to be a better
teacher and a scholar.
To my parents and two wonderful brothers. To my mom and dad for their unconditional love and
for always believing in me. Thank you for letting me be me. To my brothers, Ashish and
Abhishek, for being who they are, best brothers in the world.
To Sudhir, my love, for being there.
ii
Acknowledgements
Many people helped me complete the data collection for this dissertation. I would like to thank
N.L.Jain for showing enthusiasm and support for this study. I would also like to thank Raj
Kamal, Rahul Chopra and Deepak Pathak from the HR department for providing much needed
timely support for survey administration. I would also like to thank Nazneen for taking phone
calls from participants on my behalf and Shaukat Khan for taking me around the plant site.
I would also like to thank many respondents who took time out of their busy schedules to fill out
the eleven pages long surveys within a weeks time. It was their support and cooperation, and
willingness to help me that made data collection possible.
Finally, I would like to express my thanks for the support and suggestions of my committee
members: Suzanne Masterson, Ann Welsh and David Lundgren.
iii
Table of Contents
List of Tables. ...............................................................................................iv
List of Figures...............................................................................................v
Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose of Study ................................................................. 1

Social Exchange Model: An Overview....................................................................... 2
Creativity Defined....................................................................................................... 4
Contributions of the Research..................................................................................... 6
Structure of the Dissertation Proposal ........................................................................ 7
Chapter 2: Development of the Generic Social Exchange Model of Creativity............. 8
Creativity: Literature Review .................................................................................... 8
Building the Generic Social Exchange Model of Creativity .....................................11
Relational Environment and the Quality of Exchange Relationships............11
Perceived Quality of Exchange Relationships and Creativity .......................12
Multi-Foci Effect of Social Environment of Creativity.................................13
Summary. ...............................................................................................15
Chapter 3: Full Model Development and Hypotheses Specification...............................16
Relational Environment: Fairness Trust ...............................................................16
Fairness. .............................................................................................16
Trust. ..............................................................................................19
Fairness Trust ...........................................................................................20
Trust Perceived Quality of Exchange Relationship ..................................22
Perceived Quality of Exchange Relationships Creativity-Relevant Behaviors ....23
Perceived Organizational Support (POS) ......................................................25
Information Sharing ...........................................................................25
Risk Taking................................................................................26
Social Loafing....................................................................................27
Political Behaviors.... .........................................................27
Leader Member Exchange (LMX) ................................................28
Risk Taking................................................................................30
Social Loafing....................................................................................30
Political Behaviors .... ........................................................31
Creativity-Relevant Behaviors Creativity ............................................................31
Information Sharing Creativity . ...............................................32
Risk Taking Creativity .....................................................................32
Social Loafing Creativity...........................................................................33
Political Behaviors Creativity .............. ....................................33
Summary ....................................................34
Chapter 4: Research Methodology.........................................................................35
Research Design.............................................................35
Sample ...........................................................................................36
Procedure. ..........................................................................................37
Administration of Employees Survey ......................................................37
iv
Administration of Supervisors Survey .........38
Survey Design .......................................................39
Employees Survey . ......................................39
Fairness .....................................39
Trust. ..................................................................................40
Perceived Organizational Support .....................................................40
Leader Member Exchange .........................................................40
Pilot Testing ......................................................................................40
Supervisors Survey ...................................................................44
Risk Taking................................................................................47
Social Loafing....................................................................................47
Political Behaviors .........................................................47
Creativity............................................................................................48
Pilot Testing. ..........................................................................48
Data Analysis ................................................................................................48
Model Estimation and Hypothesis Testing ................................................................49
Summary ...........................................................................................50
Chapter 5: Results ...............................................................................................51
Confirmatory Factor Analysis ...................................................................................51
Employees Data ...........................................................................................51
Supervisors Data ..........................................................................................60
Final Set of Variables to be Included in the Structural Model ......................63
Structural Equation Modeling Results ......................................................................69
Testing the Hypothesized Model ..................................................................70
Exploratory Analyses.....................................................................................70
Exploratory Model 1 ..........................................................................72
Test of Individual Hypotheses ......................................................................77
Hypothesis 1a and 1b ........................................................................77
Hypothesis 2a and 2b ........................................................................78
Hypothesis 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d ...........................................................78
Hypothesis 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d ............................................................78
Hypothesis 5, 6, 7, and 8....................................................................81
Comparison of Originally-Hypothesized and Final Exploratory
Models................................................................................................81
Alternative Models ................................................................................................82
Alternative Model 1 .......................................................................................83
Chapter 6: Discussion . ............................................................................................88
Findings .............................................................................................89
The Hypothesized Social Exchange Model of Creativity .............................89
Fairness Trust ...............................................................................89
v
Trust Perceived Quality of Exchange Relationships ....................93
Perceived Organizational Support (POS) and Leader Member
Exchange (LMX) Creativity-Relevant Behaviors .......................94
Information Sharing, Risk Taking, and Social Loafing.....................95
Political Behaviors ............................................................................96
Creativity-Relevant Behaviors Creativity ....................................98
Multi-Foci Effect ..............................................................................99
Limitations . ...............................................................................................100
Contributions of the Study ........................................................................................102
Contributions to Research .............................................................................102
Contributions to Practice ...............................................................................104
Future Research .. ..............................................................................................104
Conclusion . ...........................................................................................105
References..........................................................................106
Appendix 1: Sample Email Message Seeking Employee Participation.................................117
Appendix 2: Sample Consent Form ......................................................................................118
Appendix 3: Employee Survey Coversheet ..........................................................................119
Appendix 4: Supervisor Survey Coversheet .........................................................................120
Appendix 5: Employee Survey. .................................................................................121
Appendix 6: Supervisory Survey ..................................................................................133
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Employee Survey Measures ..................................41
Table 2: Supervisor Survey Measures .............45
Table 3: Parcels of Variables Used in CFA of Employee Data ..................................57
Table 4: Variables Created for Structural Modeling (Employee Survey) ...................60
Table 5: Summary of CFA Model Results for Supervisors Data (Information Sharing,
Risk Taking, Social Loafing, and Creativity) ................................................61
Table 6: Summary of CFA Model Results for Political Behaviors ............................63
Table 7: Variables Created for Structural Modeling (Supervisor Survey) .................64
Table 8: Correlation Matrix .. ..................................................................................66
Table 9: Fixed Values in Structural Models ...............................................................68
Table 10: Summary of Exploratory SEM Results .........................................................76
Table 11: Comparison of Standardized Estimates Between Hypothesized and Final

Exploratory Models for Tests of Hypotheses ...............................................78
Table 12: Explained Variance in Endogenous Factors in the Final Exploratory

Model ................................................................................................81
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Generic Social Exchange Model of Creativity ............................................. 9
Figure 2: Full Social Exchange Model of Creativity .................................................... 17
Figure 3: CFA Results on Organizational Justice ........................................................53
Figure 4: CFA Results on Supervisory Justice .............................................................54
Figure 5: CFA Results on Organizational and Supervisory Trust ................................55
Figure 6: CFA Results on POS and LMX ....................................................................56
Figure 7: CFA Results on Organizational Level Variables ..........................................58
Figure 8: CFA Results on Supervisory Level Variables ..............................................59
Figure 9: CFA Results on Supervisors Data (Information Sharing, Risk Taking, Social
Loafing, and Creativity) ................................................................................62
Figure 10: CFA Results on Supervisors Data (Political behaviors) ..............................65
Figure 11: Hypothesized Social Exchange Model Results .............................................70
Figure 12: Final Exploratory Model ...............................................................................75
Figure 13: Alternative Model 1 .......................................................................................84
viii
Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose of Study
In todays knowledge economy, creativity has become essential for gaining and sustaining
competitive advantage for organizations (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), and thus, it is a topic
of interest amongst researchers and practitioners alike (e.g., Arndt, 2002). For the most part, interest
has been in understanding ways to enhance creativity. Early research on creativity focused on
understanding creative personality traits (e.g., Barron & Harrington, 1981); however, recently the
focus has been on understanding the impact of social environment and social processes on creativity
(e.g., Amabile, 1996). This stream of research has focused primarily on contextual factors such as
receipt of rewards (Eisenberger, Armeli & Pretz, 1998), task complexity (Oldham & Cummings,
1996) and evaluative context (Shalley, 1995).
Researchers such as Csikszentmihalyi (1988), and Perry-Smith and Shalley (2003) have
emphasized creativity as a social process. Perry-Smith and Shalley (2003) suggest if creativity is
truly a social process, then focusing more explicitly on the social side of creativity should enhance
our understanding of what it takes to be creative in a highly interactive work environment of which
most workers are a part of (p.89). Given that social relationships are an important feature of an
informal or a highly interactive work environment, of which most workers are a part of, studying the
impact of social relationships on creativity becomes an important area for research inquiry.
Yet, relatively limited research has been done on the impact of relational aspects such as
pattern of social relationships (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003; Burt, 2004) as well as the quality of
social relationships (e.g., Bruce & Scott, 1994; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). The study of
relational aspects such as social exchange, an important social process, has been somewhat scattered
and limited. Hence, there is a need to systematically investigate how multiple social exchange
relationships in organizations can affect creativity. In response to this need, I develop and empirically
test a social exchange model of creativity.

Relational concepts such as social exchange have much promise in understanding ways to
improve creativity for several reasons. First, past research has shown that high quality social
exchange relationships can positively influence desirable employee behaviors and attitudes (e.g.,
Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). In organizations that value creativity,
it is likely that employees social exchange relationships will facilitate desirable creativity-relevant1
behaviors. Second, the concept of social exchange may be used not only to better understand the
impact of social relationships on creativity but also to identify antecedents to creativity. Finally,
social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) may be particularly useful in examining the effect of multiple
exchange relationships on creativity. This is particularly important since there are multiple levels
with organization (Rousseau, 1985), possibly each with a distinct effect on creativity.
Social Exchange Model of Creativity: An Overview
To develop a social exchange model of creativity, Blaus (1964) social exchange theory
is utilized here to identify factors, referred to here as relational factors or variables, which might
influence employees exchange relationships in organizations, and ultimately, affect creativity.
Social exchange involves unspecified obligations and requires a certain amount of trust for
exchange to take place (Blau, 1964). Therefore, trust could be critical for developing and
sustaining social exchange relationships in organizations. In addition, research also suggests that
fairness plays an important role in the forming and sustaining social exchange relationships in
organizations (e.g., Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor,
2000). Perhaps fairness and trust constitute the relational environment within which social
relationships form and develop. Research within the separate streams of fairness and trust
suggests that both are closely related to social exchange relationships (e.g., Lewicki,
1
The term creativity-relevant behavior is being applied for convenience purposes, to signify
that these behaviors are hypothesized to facilitate creativity. An empirical test will be necessary
to demonstrate whether the relationships will actually hold.
2
McAllister, & Bies, 1998; Masterson et al., 2000); however, little empirical research exists that
has simultaneously examined the effect of employees perceptions of fairness and trust on the
quality of their exchange relationships (i.e., social exchange relationships) with the organization
and the supervisor. Therefore, I propose and test fairness and trust as key relational factors that
may potentially impact creativity because of their influence on employees social exchange
relationships.
Once established, employees quality of exchange relationships both with the
organization and the supervisor might facilitate desirable employee behaviors that might
facilitate creativity (i.e., creativity-relevant behaviors). Employees who have a high quality
exchange relationship with the organization may engage in behaviors that are likely to be
beneficial to the organization (e.g., Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Thus, in organizations that
value creativity, high quality exchange relationships may encourage employees to engage in
creativity-relevant behaviors, and ultimately, creativity. To sum up, no research has examined
the effect of fairness and trust together on the quality of exchange relationships between
employees and the organization and the supervisor, and their subsequent effect on creativity by
fostering the appropriate employee behaviors.
Due to the presence of multiple levels within organizations (i.e., organization and
supervisor; Rousseau, 1985), it is important to consider the relational environment (fairness and
trust) and its impact on exchange relationships at both the organizational and supervisory level. It
is likely that employees distinguish between the relational environment fostered at the
organizational level versus the one at the supervisory level, thereby forming distinct social
exchange relationships with the organization and the supervisor. As a result, employees
perceptions of the relational environment at the organizational and supervisory level might
3
differentially affect their creativity. Yet again, no study has examined the multi-foci effect of the
relational variables on creativity. Overall, the potential multi-foci effect of the relational factors
(i.e., fairness and trust) on employees social exchange relationships and their impact on
creativity-relevant behaviors, and ultimately, on creativity has not been studied and needs to be
studied. This dissertation attempts to do so by addressing several questions: (1) do relational
factors (i.e., trust and fairness), at both the organizational and supervisory level, affect the
perceived quality of employees exchange relationships with the organization and the supervisor
respectively, (2) does the perceived quality of exchange relationships affect creativity-relevant
behaviors and, eventually, employee creativity; and (3) is there a multi-foci effect of the
relational factors on employee creativity.
To answer these questions, I develop a multi-foci social exchange model of creativity.
More specifically, I propose that employees perceptions of organizational and supervisory
fairness and trust will independently influence the perceived quality of their exchange
relationships. This will in turn facilitate creativity-relevant behaviors, and ultimately, creativity.
In other words, this dissertation attempts to show that organizations may be able to enhance
creativity by fostering appropriate relational environment both at the organizational and
supervisory level. In the next two sections, creativity is defined, followed by a discussion of
theoretical and practical contributions of this research. The chapter ends with a brief plan for the
reminder of the dissertation.
Creativity Defined
While there is some agreement among researchers over the criteria, including novelty,
value, appropriateness and usefulness, that should be used to assess creativity, there has been
considerable debate over what should be evaluated (i.e., person, process, or product; Amabile,
4
1996; Ford & Gioia, 1995). This is an important issue because this question essentially refers to
whether the subject of investigation should be the person, process or product.
Guilford (1950) defined creativity in terms of creative personality, such that creativity
refers to the abilities that are most characteristic of a creative person (pg. 229). Research
concerned with studying personality traits of creative individuals constituted a bulk of creativity
research in the early 50s and 60s. The process-based approach to creativity is concerned with
identifying characteristics of the processes that would result in anything creative (e.g., Ghieselin,
Rompel, & Taylor, 1964). Finally, the product-based approach defines creativity in terms of
product attributes: A product or response will be judged as creative to the extent that (a) it is
novel and appropriate, useful, correct or valuable response to the tasks at hand, and (b) the task is
heuristic rather than algorithmic (Amabile, 1996; p.35).
While all three definitions represent different yet important facets of creativity, the
product-based definition is often considered the most useful, even in the research dealing with
creative people and processes. Whether the person or process is creative can only be determined
by the novelty, value and usefulness of the outcome (Amabile, 1996). For example, an individual
may fit the profile of a highly creative individual or may adopt creative processes, but in the
absence of a creative outcome, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to assess the
creativity of either the person or process. In other words, the distinguishing feature of both the
creative person and process is a creative product (Amabile, 1996). Therefore, the recent trend in
creativity research has been to adopt a product-based definition of creativity (Ford & Gioia,
1995). Alternatively, those employees whose ideas are both novel as well as useful, are
considered creative. Thus, the product-based definition of creativity is adopted in this
dissertation.
5
Contributions of the Research
This dissertation makes several contributions. It extends the extant literature on the impact
of the social environment on creativity by focusing specifically on relational aspects. This
dissertation integrates two different streams of research, social exchange and creativity, in an attempt
to provide a richer understanding of how social exchange relationships may be instrumental in
enhancing creativity. In addition, this research identifies relational antecedents to creativity, thereby
enhancing our understanding of additional social factors that might affect creativity. In doing so, it
extends the extant literature on social factors that affect creativity, which has focused primarily
on contextual elements such as supervisory support, reward structure and evaluation
apprehension (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Shalley, 1995). Finally, this study develops a multi-foci model
of creativity, and hence, contributes to our understanding of how different levels within the
organization might affect employee creativity.
The findings of this study are likely to have important implications for managers as well,
through addressing the important issue of enhancing creativity, which is a primary concern for
many organizations. In todays business world, CEOs and managers are concerned with
understanding and implementing ways to enhance creativity in order to sustain innovativeness
and competitive advantage of their organization. The results of this study may provide managers
with insights into how to enhance creativity through encouraging stronger social exchange
relationships with the organization and the supervisor. For example, managers may be able to
facilitate creativity through a fair and trusting environment, which can be achieved through relatively
inexpensive means such as changes in organizational policies and practices. This dissertation
provides a better understanding of how the social environment, which managers can influence,
may have important effect on creativity. Overall, these results may provide managers ways to
6
manage and enhance creativity, by adopting practices that will facilitate employees perceptions
of fairness and trust.
Structure of the Dissertation
The structure of the remaining dissertation is as follows. Chapter Two reviews creativity
research, develops a generic social exchange model of creativity, and identifies general
propositions for the effect of the relational environment on the perceived quality of employees
social exchange relationships and their subsequent effect on employee creativity. Chapter Three
develops specific hypotheses, at both the organizational and supervisory level, based on the
social exchange model of creativity. Chapter Four discusses the research methodology used for
studying social exchange model of creativity. Chapter Five reports results and findings and,
finally, Chapter Six discusses these findings and implications for research and practice.
7
Chapter 2: Development of the Generic Social Exchange Model of Creativity
This dissertation develops a social exchange model of creativity in order to understand
the effect of the relational environment on employees social exchange relationships, and
ultimately, their subsequent effect on creativity. This chapter reviews past research on creativity,
focusing specifically on its meaning, definition and the shift in the way creativity has been
studied from a mystical process that resides inside the brain (psychological view) to more as a
social phenomenon (social view).
This review is used as a foundation for developing the generic social exchange model of
creativity (Figure 1). More specifically, the purpose is to highlight: (1) the importance of
studying the impact of the relational factors on employees social exchange relationships with
the organization and the supervisor, and their subsequent effect on creativity, and (2) the
potential multi-foci effect of the relational factors on creativity. This chapter is divided into three
sections: the first section discusses the meaning and definition of creativity, the second discusses
the growth and current trends in creativity research, and the third develops general propositions
for the generic social exchange model of creativity.
Creativity: Literature Review
J.P Guilfords (1950) address to American Psychological Association marked the
beginning of much of the psychological research on creativity (e.g., Barron & Harrington, 1981).
Research on the creative personality provides evidence for certain creativity-related traits such as
divergent thinking and ideational fluency (e.g., Barron, 1955; MacKinnon, 1965). Although this
line of research provides valuable insights into the kind of person likely to be creative, it is
limited in a sense that it is unable to account for why individuals with creative personalities are not
always creative (Pelz & Andrews, 1966).
8
Figure 1: Generic Social Exchange Model of Creativity
Employees
Perceptions
of the relational environment
at (a) organizational level
(b) supervisory level
Perceived Quality of
Exchange
Relationship at
(a) organizational level
(b) supervisory level
Creativity-Relevant
Behaviors
Employee Creativity
9
This limitation of research on creativity personality led to the development of the social view of
creativity, which implies that creativity cannot be fully understood without considering the impact of
historical, social, economic and cultural environments (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). In other words,
creativity is a social process and is influenced by the social environment. This view has been gaining
popularity, perhaps because the implications of this view are that creativity is not just a
personality trait but something that can be managed, influenced and enhanced through proper
interventions (Montuori & Purser, 1999).
The social view of creativity is particularly useful because creativity in organizations is
essentially a collaborative process involving interactions among many persons, rather than being a
product of lone geniuses (Montuori & Purser, 1999). Not surprisingly, within organizational science,
this view has resulted in extensive research on understanding how the social environment of
organizations influences creativity (e.g., Amabile, 1996). However, the research on the impact of the
social environment on creativity has primarily focused on contextual factors such as the evaluative
context, receipt of rewards and supervisory support (Amabile, Conti, Coon, & Lazenby, 1996), with
relatively lesser attention given to the relational environment and social relationships.
While the impact of the relational environment on creativity has not been studied, there has
been some research on the impact of social relationships on creativity (e.g., Graen & Cashman, 1975;
Burt, 2004 ). Within the creativity literature, social relationships have been studied from two distinct
views: (1) structural, focusing on a network of informal social relationships or social networks (e.g.,
Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003; Burt, 2004), and (2) relational, focusing on the quality of social
exchange relationships (e.g., Bruce & Scott, 1994; Tierney et al., 1999). While both streams of
research are important and have resulted in valuable insights, this study focuses specifically on the
relational aspect, thereby emphasizing the quality of exchange relationships. Much of the research
focusing on the relational aspect of social relationships has emphasized employees relationship with
10
their supervisor (e.g., Bruce & Scott, 1994; Tierney et al., 1999), while ignoring other exchange
relationships such as with the organization. Thus, our understanding of how different social exchange
relationships in organizations affect creativity is primarily limited to leader member exchange
relationships (LMX). It is unclear as to how other exchange relationships such as with the
organization, when considered along with LMX, affect creativity. I fill this gap in the literature by
developing a multi-foci social exchange model of creativity that includes the relational environment
as well as exchange relationships both at the organizational and supervisory level. In the following
section, the propositions of the generic social exchange model are developed.
Building the Generic Social Exchange Model of Creativity
Relational Environment and the Quality of Exchange Relationships
Social exchange relationships are different from purely work relationships (e.g., reporting
relationship between employee and manager) because such relationships are neither mandated by
organizational policies nor based on purely economic exchange. Rather, social exchange
relationships are a result of employees perceptions of their relational environment. More
specifically, employees perceptions of fairness and trust are likely to affect the quality of their
exchange relationships with both the organization and the supervisor.
The norms of justice influence social exchange relationships (e.g., Blau, 1964; Molm,
Quist, & Wiesely, 1993) because exchange actions need to be of similar value and benefit to
facilitate an on-going relationship. Alternatively, it is important that parties to a social exchange
perceive it as a fair exchange. For example, fair treatment such as honesty and absence of deceit
on the part of the supervisor might facilitate a high quality employee-supervisor exchange
relationship. Thus, employees perceptions of fairness are likely to affect the quality of their
exchange relationships with focal exchange partners.
11
Further, social exchange involves voluntary behaviors which create future obligations for
reciprocity. The nature of the return obligations cannot be specified in advance and, therefore,
require trusting others to fulfill their obligations (Blau, 1964). Trust is important for the
development and continuance of social relationships because it reduces risk and uncertainty
involved in such relationships (Molm et al., 1993). Thus, trust serves as a foundation for social
exchange relationships. Overall, fairness and trust are important aspects of the social reality of
organizations and constitute the relational environment, thereby influencing employees
perceptions of the quality of their exchange relationships with the organization and supervisor.
Therefore, I propose:
Proposition 1: The relational environment, more specifically fairness and trust, will
facilitate the perceived quality of employees social exchange relationships with both
the organization and supervisor.
Perceived Quality of Exchange Relationships and Creativity
In the previous section, I proposed that the relational environment is likely to influence
employees social exchange relationships in organizations. This section develops proposition for
the next phase of the model (Figure 1): the effect of the perceived quality of exchange
relationships on creativity.
The concept of social exchange (Blau, 1964) and norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960)
have long been used to explain functional employee behaviors and attitudes. Employees form
multiple exchange relationship in organizations and the perceived quality of their exchange
relationship with a partner produces felt obligations within them to reciprocate in mutually
beneficial ways. This thesis was subsequently tested and supported by researchers such as
Settoon, Bennett, and Liden (1996). Their study showed that employees perceiving a high quality
12
exchange relationship with a focal exchange partner such as organization will feel indebted to
reciprocate through behaviors and attitudes that are valued by and beneficial to the organization.
Thus, to the extent that employees perceive high quality exchange relationships with the
organization and the supervisor, they will feel obligated to reciprocate by engaging in behaviors
that are beneficial to and valued by both. In some organizations, where creativity is valued, this
obligation may result in higher levels of creativity-relevant behaviors. Thus, it is likely that the
perceived quality of exchange relationships might encourage employees to engage in creativity-
relevant behaviors, which in turn may influence employee creativity. Therefore, I propose
Proposition 2: The perceived quality of employees social exchange relationships will
facilitate creativity-relevant behaviors, and hence, overall creativity.
Multi-foci effect of social environment on creativity
Finally, it is important to distinguish among different foci of employees perceptions of
the relational environment and their differential effects on the quality of exchange relationships,
and ultimately, on creativity. A study of multi-foci effects is particularly important because
employees are likely to experience related yet distinct work environments at the organizational
and supervisory level. In other words, it is possible that supervisors may foster an environment
which is distinct from that of the organization, which could then differentially affect employee
creativity.
Research on other organizational phenomenon such as organizational commitment (e.g.,
Becker, 1992) and justice (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002) suggest that employees distinguish
between different foci (supervisor, team and organization). Becker (1992) suggested that
employees distinguish between their attachments to the organization and the work group.
Similarly, Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) suggest that employees distinguish between
13
organizational and supervisory fairness. Based on past research, it seems likely that employees
will distinguish between their perceptions of the relational environment at the organizational and
supervisory level.
Employees form social exchange relationships with a partner based on their perceptions
of that exchange partner (Wayne et al., 1997), and thus, it is likely that the relational
environment at the organizational and supervisory level will affect employees social exchange
relationship with the organization and the supervisor respectively. For example, employees
perceptions of a positive relational environment (i.e., fair and trusting) at the organizational level
may positively influence the quality of their exchange relationship with the organization. In
contrast, employees perceptions of negative relational environment at the supervisory level may
adversely influence the quality of their exchange relationship with the supervisor. Then,
employees quality of exchange relationships with the organization and the supervisor may in
turn facilitate or hinder creativity-relevant behaviors, and ultimately, creativity. This suggests
that employees perceptions of the relational environment at the organizational and supervisory
level could impact creativity through different mechanisms.
Furthermore, organizations are multi-level entities with each level being embedded
within the other (Rousseau, 1985). For examples, supervisors may be embedded within the work
group, which may be embedded within the organization, implying that perhaps the more
immediate context for employees is the relational environment fostered by the supervisor. It is
likely that the relational environment at the supervisory level may have stronger impact on
creativity-relevant behaviors because it is more proximate to employees. Alternatively, it is also
possible that the relational environment at the organizational level is more pervasive, perhaps
because of stronger organizational culture, thereby having a stronger impact on creativity. Thus,
14
the relational environment at either level may have stronger impact on creativity. While I do not
formally hypothesize which of the two relational environments, organizational or supervisory,
will have stronger impact on employees creativity-relevant behaviors and creativity, I will
explore the comparative effect of the relational environment at two levels. As such, I propose:
Proposition 3: Employees perceptions of the relational environment at the
organizational and supervisory level will affect creativity differently.
Summary
This chapter developed the generic social exchange model of creativity and offered
general propositions for: (1) the effect of the relational environment (fairness and trust) on
employees social exchange relationships; (2) the effect of employees social exchange
relationships on creativity-relevant behaviors, and creativity; and (3) the multi-foci effect of the
relational environment on creativity. The next chapter will deal with each proposition in greater
detail and develop testable hypotheses.
15
Chapter 3: Full Model Development and Hypotheses Specification
The basic proposition of the social exchange model of creativity is that fairness and trust
may affect employee creativity because of their influence on employees social exchange
relationships with the organization and supervisor. The previous chapter developed general
propositions for the effects; however, to be able to test those propositions, specific hypotheses
must be developed. The full model to be tested is presented in Figure 2, and subsequent sections
of this chapter develop hypotheses for each of the specific relationships.
Relational Environment: Fairness Trust
Before developing specific hypotheses, the two key relational concepts, fairness and trust,
are defined and briefly discussed.
Fairness
Traditionally, organizational justice, or employees perceptions of fairness in the
workplace, has been categorized into three distinct although related types of fairness: (1) the
fairness of the outcomes received in terms of equality and equity (e.g., Adam, 1965), referred to
as distributive justice (DJ); (2) the fairness of formal procedures and the procedures used to
distribute outcomes (e.g., Lind & Tyler, 1988), referred to as procedural justice (PJ); and (3) the
fairness of the quality of interpersonal relationships and treatment (e.g., Bies & Moag, 1986)
referred to as interactional justice (IJ). Recently, Colquitt (2001) has empirically demonstrated
that interactional justice (IJ) has two sub-dimensions: (1) interpersonal justice (IPJ), which
specifically focuses on interpersonal sensitivity, for example, politeness and civility in
interactions; and (2) informational justice (IFJ) which focuses specifically on the adequacy of the
information or explanations provided. Based on the most recent research findings, organizational
16
Figure 2: Full Social Exchange Model of Creativity
Info.
Organizational
sharing
Trust
H2a H5
H1a
H3a
Organizational Perceived
Fairness Organizational H3b Risk
Support (POS) taking
H3c H6
H3d
Creativity
H4a H7
Social
Leader Member H4b
loafing
Supervisory Exchange H4c
Fairness (LMX)
H4d H8
H1b
H2b
Political
Supervisory
behavior
Trust
Employees Perceptions of Relational Perceived

Environment Quality of Creativity-Relevant Creativity
Relationship Behaviors
17
justice is best considered as a four dimensional construct: (1) distributive justice, (2) procedural
justice, (3) interpersonal justice, and finally, (4) informational justice (Colquitt, 2001). All four
dimensions are considered as distinct and have independent effects on employee attitudes and
behaviors.
Early research on organizational justice did not specifically examine the source of
fairness, even though it has been proposed that employees direct their responses or behaviors to
the party believed to be responsible for fair (unfair) acts. For example, Bies and Moag (1986)
suggested that interactional justice will result in behaviors and attitudes directed at the person
considered responsible for enacting procedures. However, original research on organizational
justice and social exchange focused primarily on the types of fairness, often treating types of
fairness (e.g., procedural and interactional) as a proxy for the source (organizational and
supervisor) (e.g., Malatesta & Byrne, 1997; Masterson et al., 2000).
In order to incorporate both the source and type effects of fairness, more recently,
researchers such as Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) and Byrne (1999) have proposed a multi-foci
model of fairness. Under this perspective, different entities (person, team or organization) can be
a source of all four types of fairness. For example, a supervisor can be responsible for
formulating procedures, allocating outcomes, conducting interactions, and providing
explanations for the procedures or policies being used, and hence, can be seen as a source of
procedural, distributive and interpersonal and informational justice. All four types of supervisory
fairness (i.e., supervisory procedural justice (SPJ), supervisory distributive (SDJ), supervisory
interpersonal justice (SIPJ) and supervisory informational (SIFJ)) are likely to have distinct
effects on employee attitudes and behaviors. In addition, supervisory justice (i.e., procedural,
distributive, interpersonal and informational) is proposed to affect supervisor related outcomes
18
such as favor doing for the supervisor whereas organizational justice (i.e., procedural,
distributive, interpersonal and informational) should affect organization related outcomes such as
employees organizational commitment (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002).
The multi-foci model of fairness may be particularly useful in studying social exchange
relationships because employees form social exchange relationships with an entity on the basis
of the evaluation of that entity as a source of all four types of fairness (Rupp & Cropanzano,
2002). For example, employees are likely to consider all four of the following: (1) whether the
distribution of outcomes by the supervisor is fair, (2) whether the procedures adopted by the
supervisor are fair, (3) whether they are being treated with sensitivity by the supervisor, and
finally, (4) whether they are being provided adequate explanations by the supervisor. Unfairness
in any of the four types of fairness (i.e., the distribution of outcomes, procedures, interpersonal
treatment and information provided) is likely to impact employees overall assessment of
fairness of that source (person, team or organization), which may subsequently affect employees
social exchange relationships with that source (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). Given the focus of
this dissertation on employees perceptions of the quality of exchange relationships with the
organization and supervisor, I adopt the multi-foci approach to fairness. As such, I will examine
both the organization and the supervisor as a source of all four types of fairness (distributive,
procedural, interpersonal and informational justice).
Trust
Unlike fairness, there is much diversity in the conceptualization of trust. There are many
definitions of trust including, (1) positive expectations of and confidence in others behaviors
(Barber, 1983; McAllister, 1995), (2) a calculative decision to cooperate with others (Gambetta,
1988), and (3) a willingness to make oneself vulnerable to the actions of others (Mayer, Davis, &
19
Schoorman, 1995). With so many different conceptualizations, it seems appropriate to identify
the one definition that is best suited to the problem under investigation (Bigley & Pearce, 1998).
In their review of different definitions of trust, Bigley and Pearce (1998) offered a problem
centered approach, advising researchers to acknowledge diversity in trust definitions and to
move from what trust to which trust and when? (pg. 406).
Based on theoretical grounds underlying social relationships, Bigley and Pearce (1998),
suggested that the definition offered by Mayer et al., (1995) is appropriate for studying social
relationships in an organizational context. Mayer and colleagues (1995) conceptualized trust as a
unidimensional construct and defined it as, the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the
actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action
important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party (pg.
712). They further go on to suggest that this definition of trust may be particularly applicable to
relationships that are voluntary in nature.
Trust is often grounded in expectations, assumptions or beliefs that the other party will
behave in a way that is beneficial, favorable or at least not detrimental to ones interest (e.g.,
Robinson, 1996; Gambetta, 1988). Trust enables one to take risks and become vulnerable to
others actions (Mayer et al., 1995) because of the belief in the reliability, predictability and
dependability of the others actions, and in the good intentions and motives underlying the
actions (McAllister, 1995).
Fairness Trust
The relationship between fairness and trust has been supported theoretically as well as
empirically (e.g., Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Lind, 1998; van den Bos, Wilke, & Lind, 1998).
Fairness heuristic theory (Lind, 2001) suggests, when faced with a social dilemma, employees
20
utilize fairness related information to assess the trustworthiness of that party. In support of this
line of reasoning, van den Bos and colleagues (1998) found that when information regarding the
trustworthiness of an authority is not available (an antecedent of trust), employees are likely to
base their decision to trust on fairness perceptions of that authority. Specifically, employees
fairness perceptions of an entity may lead employees to believe that the entity will consistently
behave in a fair manner. For example, if employees previous interactions with the supervisor
have been fair, then employees are likely to expect that, in the future, the supervisor will
continue to behave in a fair manner. Thus, positive fairness perceptions will encourage
employees to rely and depend on future exchange actions, and hence, take risk and be more
willing to be vulnerable to others actions. In other words, to the extent a party is perceived to be
acting in a fair manner it is likely to be trusted.
Similarly, the relational model of fairness (Tyler & Lind, 1992) may be used to explain
the role of fairness perceptions in the development of trust. Employees care about fairness
because it reduces the risk of rejection or loss of identification with a group, and provides a sense
of belongingness or inclusion in a group (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001), which
can in turn facilitate trust in the group (Tyler & Degoey, 1996). For example, employees who
are being treated fairly by the organization will perceive reduced risk of rejection or loss of
identification with the organization leading employees to feel like a part of the organization. This
in turn may increase employees willingness to be vulnerable to organizations actions, thereby
facilitating employees trust in their organization.
Although the relationship between fairness and trust has been examined primarily in
relation to procedural justice (e.g, Kovnosky & Pugh, 1994; Van den Bos et al., 1998), given the
evidence for multi-foci model of fairness (e.g., Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002), it is likely that
21
employee will utilize all four types of fairness related information to evaluate the trustworthiness
of a source. Therefore, employees perceptions of all four types of fairness (PJ, DJ, IPJ, & IFJ) of
the organization and the supervisor are likely to influence their trust in the organization and the
supervisor respectively. Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1a: Employees perceptions of organizational fairness (ODJ, OPJ, OIPJ,
OIFJ) will be positively related to their organizational trust.
Hypothesis 1b: Employees perceptions of supervisory fairness (SDJ, SPJ, SIPJ,
SIFJ) will be positively related to their supervisory trust.
Trust Perceived Quality of Exchange Relationship
Social exchange relationships involve voluntary and unspecified reciprocal obligations
and, in such relationships, trust that each party will fulfill its obligations is a necessary and an
important condition (Blau, 1964). Unlike economic exchange, return obligations cannot be
bargained for and have to be left at the discretion of the other party (Blau, 1964), because of
which there is some uncertainty and risk involved in social exchange (Molm et al., 1993). Trust
reduces the uncertainty and risk involved in social exchange relationships (Mayer et al., 1995),
thereby providing confidence in others future exchange actions.
Specifically, trust provides confidence in the predictability, reliability and dependability
of others actions, which reduces the uncertainty and risk involved in future social exchange
actions (Molm, et al., 1993). Trust in a focal exchange partner is likely to enhance the
expectation that the partner will reciprocate with exchange actions of equivalent values and
benefits, thereby reducing ones perceptions of the risk involved in social exchange relationships.
Further, trust implies a partys good intentions and motives, which gives confidence in future
22
reciprocal exchange actions of similar values and benefits. Therefore, trust will positively
influence employees perceptions of the quality of their exchange relationships with the party.
It has been established that employees distinguish between work environments (Becker,
1992), and that employees form multiple social exchange relationships in organizations (e.g.,
Wayne et al., 1997). Past research has shown that employees form social exchange relationship
with a party based on their perceptions of that party (e.g., Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). Thus, the
relational environment at the organizational level is likely to influence employees perceptions of
the quality of exchange relationship with the organization, manifested through perceived
organizational support (POS). Similarly, the relational environment at the supervisory level is
likely to influence employees perceptions of the quality of exchange relationships with the
supervisor, manifested through leader member exchange (LMX). Moreover, exchange
relationships such as LMX are characterized by mutual trust between the supervisor and the
employee (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997). Therefore, employees trust in the organization and their
supervisor is likely to influence the perceptions of the quality of their exchange relationship with
the organization (i.e., POS) and the supervisor (i.e., LMX) respectively. Therefore, I
hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2a: Employees organizational trust will be positively related to
perceived organizational support (POS).
Hypothesis 2b: Employees supervisory trust will be positively related to leader
member exchange (LMX).
Perceived Quality of Exchange Relationship Creativity Relevant Behaviors
According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), employees high quality exchange
relationships produce obligations within employees to reciprocate to the focal exchange partner
23
through comparable exchange actions. Often, employees social exchange relationships
positively affect desirable behaviors and attitudes towards that exchange partner. For example,
employees perceptions of the quality of their exchange relationships with the organization (i.e.,
POS) will obligate employees to reciprocate through functional behaviors (e.g., citizenship
behaviors; Wayne et al., 1997) and corresponding attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment;
Wayne, Tetrick, Shore & Bommer, 2002).
Often employee attitudes are directed toward a specific exchange partner, for example,
organizational commitment that is directed towards the organization, whereas certain functional
behaviors, such as citizenship behaviors, may not be directed toward a specific exchange partner.
For example, employees social exchange relationships with both the organization and supervisor
independently affect citizenship behaviors that are not specifically directed towards either the
organization or the supervisor but that are valued by and beneficial to both (e.g., Wayne et al.,
1997). Thus, employees social exchange relationships with different exchange partners (e.g.,
organization and supervisor) may be associated with functional employee behaviors that are not
necessarily directed at a specific exchange partner but in fact are valued by and benefit both.
Drawing an analogy from previous research, I propose that employees perceptions of the
quality of their exchange relationships with both the organization (i.e., POS) and the supervisor
(i.e., LMX) will independently affect creativity-relevant behaviors that are not directed
specifically toward either the organization or the supervisor but are valued by and beneficial to
both. In the following sections, I develop specific hypotheses for the relationships linking POS
and LMX with each of the creativity relevant-behaviors: information-sharing, risk-taking, social
loafing and political behaviors.
24
Perceived Organizational Support (POS)
Perceived organizational support (POS) reflects employees beliefs that the organization
values their contributions and cares for their well being (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), and is
often used as a measure of the quality of exchange relationship with the organization (e.g.,
Masterson et al., 2000). Further, POS is associated with employees beliefs that the organization
will provide both the work-related and socio-emotional help and support required to complete
the job effectively and to deal with stressful situations (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). In return,
employees feel obligated to care about organizational welfare and objectives by engaging in
functional behaviors that are beneficial to the organization, such as citizenship behaviors (Wayne
et al., 1997). POS is also associated with employees beliefs that the organization supports,
recognizes and rewards increased performance, which motivates employees to engage in
functional work-related behaviors that may help increase their performance (Rhoades &
Eisenberger, 2002).
Applying the reasoning underlying the relationships between POS and employee
behaviors (e.g., Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Wayne et al., 1997), I propose that employees
who report high levels of perceived organizational support in organizations that value creativity
are likely to engage in creativity-relevant behaviors, both because of their felt obligations to care
about organizational welfare and objectives, and because of their beliefs that such behaviors are
likely to be supported, recognized and rewarded. The four creativity-relevant behaviors I will
examine are: (1) information-sharing, (2) risk-taking, (3) social loafing, and (4) political
behaviors.
Information-sharing. Information-sharing refers to the extent to which employees are
willing to share work-related ideas and information with others. Typically, information-sharing
25
has been operationalized as a team-level construct (e.g., Team members keep each other
informed about work related issues; Anderson & West, 1996). Here, I operationalize it as an
individual-level construct (e.g., I am willing to share job-related information with others). I
propose that POS will be positively associated with information-sharing for two reasons. First, in
organizations that value creativity, one option for employees who wish to reciprocate positive
organizational support is to engage in information-sharing. This may be perceived as an
appropriate exchange for organizational support because it helps to enhance their own as well as
others creativity, thereby benefiting the organization. Second, employees are likely to believe
that information-sharing will be supported, recognized, and rewarded by the organization that
values creativity. As a result, employees are likely to be motivated to engage in information-
sharing with others. Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3a: POS will be positively related to information-sharing.
Risk-taking. Risk-taking behaviors refer to those behaviors that may be associated with
uncertain, difficult to realize, or radical outcomes (Sitkin & Pablo, 1992). For example, risk-
taking may involve offering ideas that may be extremely difficult to implement or that will
adversely affect ones reputation if they fail. In organizations that value creativity, risk-taking
behaviors are considered beneficial to the organization (Amabile, 1996) and hence, may be
perceived as a comparable form of repayment for organizational support. Thus, employees
perceiving high organizational support may engage in risk-taking behaviors to reciprocate for the
organizations support. Further, in organizations that value creativity, high POS encourages
employees to engage in risk-taking behaviors because it reduce the risks associated with
uncertain or failed outcomes of the ideas or suggestions offered (Zhou & George, 2001). Finally,
employees beliefs that risk-taking behaviors are likely to be supported, recognized and rewarded
26
by the organization will further motivate them to engage in risk-taking behaviors. Therefore, I
hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3b: POS will be positively related to risk-taking.
Social loafing. Social loafing is defined as the tendency of individual team members to
exert less effort when working in teams as compared to when working alone (George, 1992). For
example, social loafing may involve employees putting forth less effort during brain storming
sessions. A supportive organization is more attractive and involving, and thus, employees
perceiving high levels of organizational support are less likely to withdraw, psychologically or
physically (Cropanzano, Howes, Grandy, & Toth, 1997). High levels of POS will encourage
employees to reciprocate by engaging in behaviors that are valued by and beneficial to the
organization in order to maintain the equilibrium of the exchange relationship. Engaging in
social loafing will negatively impact their own and others performance, and in turn harm the
organization, which could disrupt the equilibrium of the exchange relationships. Thus,
employees perceiving high levels of organizational support are likely not to engage in social
loafing. Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3c: POS will be negatively related to social loafing.
Political behaviors. Political behaviors or tactics2 refer to those informal behaviors that involve
the use of influence tactics, particularly in situations that involve dissensus about choices or
conflict, to achieve desired ends (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980) such as creativity.
Political behaviors may involve the use of one or more of the following influence tactics:
ingratiation, upward appeal, assertiveness, rationality, coalition, and exchange (e.g., Kipnis et al.,
2
The terms political tactics and political behaviors will used alternatively through out the
dissertation.
27
1980; Schiresheim & Hinkin, 1990).
Political behaviors may be used to support organizational goals (e.g., Schien, 1977). In
organizations that value creativity, political behaviors or the use of influence tactics to enhance
creativity is likely to be valued, may even be encouraged, and hence, seen as a comparable form
of repayment for organizational support. Employees perceiving high levels of organizational
support will feel obligated to repay the organization by engaging in behaviors that will contribute
towards or support organizational goals such as creativity. In order to reciprocate for
organizational support, employees may use one or more political tactics as a means to enhance
their creativity. For example, employees may form a coalition with other employees for the
purpose of exchanging ideas or receiving feedback on their ideas, which could further develop
their ideas, and hence, enhance their creativity. Thus, employees perceiving high organizational
support are likely to engage in political behaviors with a purpose of enhancing creativity, thereby
benefiting the organization. Therefore, I propose:
Hypothesis 3d: POS will be positively related to political behaviors (i.e.,
assertiveness, ingratiation, rationality, coalition, exchange, upward appeal).
Leader Member Exchange (LMX)
Leader Member Exchange (LMX) focuses on the dyadic relationship between a
supervisor and an employee, and is indicative of the employees quality of social exchange
relationships with the supervisor (Wayne et al., 1997; Graen & Scandura, 1987). High quality
LMX is characterized by high levels of support, discretion, autonomy, trust, liking and respect
(Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999). Although both POS and LMX are grounded
predominantly in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and norms of reciprocity (Gouldner,
28
1960), the two are conceptually distinct and differentially affect important outcomes (e.g.,
Setton, et al., 1996).
While no research has examined the relationship between POS and creativity, past
research has found support for a positive and direct relationship between LMX and creativity
(e.g., Graen & Cashman, 1975; Bruce & Scott, 1994; Tierney et al., 1999). However, the
relationships between LMX and specific creativity-relevant behaviors have not been examined. I
draw from existing research on LMX and creativity to propose specific relationships between
LMX and information sharing, risk taking, social loafing, and political behaviors. Moreover, I
will examine the relative contribution of POS versus LMX in influencing employees creativity-
relevant behaviors.
Overall, I propose that employees who report high levels of LMX are likely to engage in
creativity-relevant behaviors, both because of the role expectations (e.g., Bruce & Scott, 1994),
and support, discretion and autonomy received (e.g., Graen & Cashman, 1975; Tierney et al,
1999). LMX will be related positively to information sharing, risk taking and political behaviors,
and negatively to social loafing.
Information-sharing. High LMX is indicative of effective working relationships that are
characterized by mutual trust and respect in cooperation and collaboration (Bruce & Scott,
1994), which could foster an environment characterized by openness. Such an environment is
likely to encourage employees to be open and share work-related information. Therefore, in the
presence of high levels of LMX, employees are more likely to share work-related information
because of the trusting environment. Furthermore, according to LMX theory, managers facilitate
desirable employee behavior by setting role expectations (e.g., Kacmar, Witt, Zivnuska, & Gully,
2003). Bruce and Scott (1994) suggest that supervisors expectations of employees to be creative
29
are likely to result in employees creativity-relevant behaviors. Thus, in high quality LMX,
where supervisors expect employees to be creative, employees may strive to meet those
expectations by engaging in information-sharing as it could facilitate creativity (Parnes, 1964).
Finally, in the presence of high quality LMX relationships, employees are likely to
reciprocate by engaging in behaviors that are directed towards others but indirectly help the
supervisor (e.g., Wayne et al., 1997). For example, sharing work-related information may be
targeted at improving team or departmental brain storming, but its positive effects may also
indirectly help supervisors. Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 4a: LMX will be positively related to information-sharing.
Risk-taking. In the presence of high quality LMX, supervisors are likely to provide more
opportunities for challenging tasks, which may encourage or even require employees to take
risks (e.g., Tierney et al., 1999). High quality LMX relationships are also characterized by high
levels of support, discretion and autonomy, which allow employees to feel supported and allows
discretion necessary for employees to take risk (e.g., Graen & Cashman, 1975). Furthermore,
high LMX leads employees to believe that their work environment is supportive of creativity
because of which employees are more likely to take risks (Graen & Cashman, 1975). Overall,
high quality LMX is likely to facilitate risk taking because employees believe that it is
encouraged, recognized, rewarded and at times even required. Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 4b: LMX will be positively related to risk-taking.
Social loafing. Past research has found support for a negative relationship between LMX
and social loafing (Murphy, Wayne, Liden, & Erdogan, 2003). In their study, Murphy and
colleagues (2003) theorized that employees with high quality LMX tend to exert extra effort and
engage in behaviors that go beyond the ones mandated by the job, whereas employees with low
30
quality LMX will not be motivated to put in extra effort because their task performance will
contribute towards supervisors performance. They further suggested that employees with low
quality LMX relationships will reciprocate by slacking off (i.e., engaging in social loafing) in
order to maintain an equitable exchange relationship with the supervisor. Therefore, I
hypothesize:
Hypothesis 4c: LMX will be negatively related to social loafing.
Political behaviors. Employees with high quality LMX relationships are likely to engage
in behaviors that go beyond and are not mandated by the job (Wayne et al., 1997). Political
behaviors are informal behaviors that are not mandated by the job or the organization (Gandz &
Murray, 1980), and may be used to support organizational goals (e.g., Schien, 1977) such as
creativity. Employees with high quality LMX relationships may reciprocate by engaging in
political behaviors because such behaviors are likely to indirectly contribute towards
supervisors performance, thereby maintaining an equitable exchange relationship. Furthermore,
as suggested earlier, employees may also engage in political behaviors because of their belief
that these behaviors are supported, recognized and rewarded. Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 4d: LMX will be positively related to political behaviors (i.e.,
assertiveness, ingratiation, rationality, coalition, exchange, and upward appeal).
Creativity-Relevant Behaviors Creativity
This section discusses the impact of each of the creativity-relevant behaviors
(information-sharing, risk-taking, political behaviors and social loafing) on employee creativity.
Specifically, it is proposed that information-sharing, risk-taking, and political behaviors will
positively, whereas social loafing will negatively, impact employee creativity.
31
Information-sharing Creativity
Sharing ideas and information with others increases the probability of individual creative
idea generation (Parnes, 1964), primarily because of the possibility of receiving developmental
feedback. Feedback can help employees evaluate and refine their ideas, and hence, enhance their
own creativity (Zhou, 2003). However, feedback will only be possible when employees are
willing to expose or share ideas or work-related information with others. Thus, information-
sharing can facilitate individual creativity as a result of feedback and help from others.
Information-sharing can also enhance creativity through collaborative idea flow. Information-
sharing is a component of participation (Anderson & West, 1996) through which collaborative
idea flow increases, which may in turn generate new ideas and suggestions and hence, positively
influence creativity (Amabile, 1996). Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 5: Information-sharing will be positively related to creativity.
Risk-taking Creativity
There is theoretical as well as empirical research evidence supporting the role of risk in
enhancing creativity (e.g., Amabile, 1996). By definition, creativity is something new or original
(Amabile, 1996), which often requires exploring new ideas, the outcomes of which are uncertain
and, often, unknown. Creativity requires the courage to take risks, challenge existing knowledge,
or venture into unexplored areas (Kogan & Wallach, 1964). Employees who take risks and
challenge existing knowledge and norms are most likely to generate unusual, novel and original
ideas (e.g., Kirton, 1976). Thus, risk-taking behaviors increase the probability of employees
being creative. Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 6: Risk-taking will be positively related to creativity.
32
Social loafing Creativity
Social loafing can be particularly problematic because it is easy for employees to reduce
or slack off their efforts in generating creative ideas when they are working with others
collaboratively or as a work group (Paulus, 2000; West, 2001). The reduced efforts may
adversely impact both the quality as well as the quantity of the ideas generated by an individual.
For example, employees who engage in social loafing will have fewer ideas to contribute during
team or departmental meetings, thereby directly affecting their own creativity. Therefore, I
hypothesize:
Hypothesis 7: Social loafing will be negatively related to creativity.
Political behaviors Creativity
Employees may engage in a variety of political behaviors, such as ingratiation, upward
appeal, and rationality (e.g., Kipnis et al., 1980) to acquire additional information to enhance
their individual creativity. For example, employees can get others to share subject- or task-
related information by praising them (ingratiation), asking a supervisor to back their request
(upward appeal) or explaining reasons for their request in detail (rationality). This information
may improve employees task related skills or knowledge base, both of which have been shown
to be positively related to creativity (e.g., Amabile, 1996).
In addition, political tactics can facilitate creativity through increased support and
acceptance of the ideas. Given that creativity is domain specific and the evaluation of creativity
is ultimately a subjective evaluation by others (e.g., Amabile, 1996), the support and acceptance
of others can be critical for creativity. For example, creativity is not about whether employees
think that their ideas are creative, rather it is about whether the supervisor or the team think that
33
the idea is creative. Therefore, it then becomes important to convince those who matter of their
creativity. For example, employees may try to manage impressions by inflating the significance
of their ideas (ingratiation), write a detailed justification for their ideas (rationality), or build a
coalition to influence the subjective evaluations of relevant experts or judges, all of which will
result in positive evaluation of their creativity. Overall, employees may engage in a number of
political behaviors to improve their subject knowledge or task-related skills and positively
influence subjective evaluation of their creativity. Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 8: Employees political behaviors (i.e., assertiveness, ingratiation,
rationality, coalition, exchange, and upward appeal) will be positively related to
creativity.
Summary
This chapter developed the full social exchange model of creativity and presented
specific hypotheses for each relationship in the model. The next chapter will discuss the research
methodology proposed for testing the social exchange model of creativity.
34
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
The purpose of this chapter is to describe research methodology used to test the social
exchange model of creativity proposed in the Chapter 3.
Research Design
The social exchange model of creativity proposes relationships between employees
perceptions of the relational environment of the organization and creativity-relevant behaviors,
and ultimately, creativity. A field study design, in which surveys from employees and their
supervisors were collected from a single organization, was used to test the model. The field study
design not only increased the external validity but also provided a real context for studying
employees perceptions of the relational environment of the organization, making the study more
meaningful to practitioners by increasing the generalizabilty and acceptability of the results.
The organizational setting chosen for this study was a large chemical plant in India. The
organization was particularly suited for this study for several reasons. First, the organization
meets the most important criteria for testing this model in that creativity is an explicitly stated
organizational goal. For example, there are regularly held periodic think tank forums whose
purpose is to provide every employee a forum for presenting the creative ideas. This forum
helps in identifying potential areas of improvement to achieve excellence in cost, quality, safety,
environment, customer satisfaction, employee moral and Quality Management as a whole.
[source: company documents]. Moreover, the description of employees key performance areas
(KPA) includes innovativeness towards improving product and service quality. Second, the
organization deliberately strives to provide a nurturing environment for creativity, making it an
ideal setting to study the impact of the relational environment on employee creativity
35
Third, the organization primarily employs engineers who are actively engaged in various
problem solving tasks such as product quality improvement and reduction in cost of production
through process improvisation. Finally, the companys hierarchical structure allows for
examining the differential effects of the relational factors both at the organizational and
supervisory level. For these reasons, the organization is well suited to study the potential impact
of the organizations relational environment on creativity-relevant behaviors, and ultimately, on
creativity.
Sample
In order to identify participants for the study, a list detailing the reporting relationships
for all employees was obtained from the Human Resources department. Due to the hierarchical
structure of the company, employees often served both as an employee of a particular supervisor
as well as in a supervisory role to other employees. To minimize bias in the data, it was
necessary that employees fill out a survey in only one role. Thus, a total of 234 salaried
employees were asked to fill out the employees survey, and then their immediate supervisors
were asked to fill out supervisors survey.
Of 234 employees sampled, 223 returned the completed survey for a 95% response rate.
All participants were males between the ages of 23 and 55. Most of the employees were from
lower and middle level management and their tenure varied widely ranging from one year to
sixteen years. Only employees from the middle and lower level management were included in
the sample because employees beyond a certain level were extremely busy and the company was
particularly interested in the creativity of employees in low and middle level management. The
minimum education level for all employees was a Bachelors degree. All participants were very
well versed in spoken and written English because of the technical nature of their work, which
36
was exclusively in English, and also because of their education level. All supervisors were male
between the ages of 33 to 59. Supervisors knew employees between 6 months to 9.5 years. The
minimum education level for all supervisors was a Bachelors degree as well.
Procedure
Administration of employees survey
An email explaining the purpose of the study and requesting employees participate in the
study was sent to all employees from the Human Resources department (a sample email message
is included in Appendix 1). Following the email, all department heads were contacted by phone
to gain permission for employees to be released from their daily work schedule for a period of
25-30 minutes, in batches of 5-10 employees twice in a eight hour shift. Permission was granted
from all the department heads.
At the meeting, employees were requested to read through the survey and to ask any
questions. All employees were given a consent form and a survey whose front sheet explained
the purpose and procedure of the project (a sample of the consent form and cover sheet is
included in Appendix 2 and 3). Surveys were pre-coded with an identification number given by
the researcher. No other identifying information was included on the survey. Employees were
clearly instructed to separate the consent form from their survey at the time of returning so that
their responses could not be matched with their name by anyone other than the researcher.
Employees were asked to return the survey within one week. Follow-up phone calls were
made to those employees who did not return the survey within that time frame. Two alternative
methods were offered for returning surveys. One way was to drop-off the consent form and
survey in two separate sealed-off boxes, one for signed consent form and other for the survey,
37
kept in the Human Resources department. In the second way, the researcher periodically visited
the department to collect completed surveys.
Administration of supervisors survey
For the 234 employees, there were 61 supervisors. All of the 61 supervisors were
contacted to schedule a meeting time to explain the purpose and procedure of the study. Before
administrating the survey to employees, the researcher first met with the supervisors because it
was important for supervisors to know about the project as they were the ones to grant
permission for a release time for their employees. Supervisors were given a consent form
(similar to that of employees) and survey along with the cover sheet explaining the purpose and
procedure of the project (a sample cover sheet is included as Appendix 4). Of the 61 supervisors
contacted, 58 returned the survey for a 95 % response rate.
Although supervisors were responsible for reviewing and appraising multiple employees,
including some who were not included in the sample, supervisors were asked to specifically
provide information only about those employees whose names appeared on their survey forms.
Supervisors too were given a week to return the survey and given two alternative options to
return the consent form and completed survey. In order to ensure the participation of as many
supervisors as possible, several follow-up phone calls were made to supervisors who had not
returned the survey in a week. This was necessary in order to make employee data complete and
usable because without the supervisors information about employees behaviors and
performance, employees responses could not be included in the final data set.
38
Survey Design
To test the social exchange model of creativity, measures were identified or developed
for both the employees and supervisors surveys. This section describes the process of designing
the surveys for supervisors and employees.
Employees survey
The employees survey measured 12 variables: distributive justice, procedural justice,
interpersonal justice, and informational justice at both the organizational and supervisory level,
organizational trust, supervisory trust, perceived organizational support (POS), and leader
member exchange (LMX). Table 1 contains a full item list for each of these variables. All items
were measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale, with one being either to a small extent or
strongly disagree and seven being either to a large extent or strongly agree. A sample
employee survey is included in Appendix 5.
Fairness. Colquitts (2001) measure of justice perceptions was used to measure
employees' perceptions of both the organizational and supervisory fairness along the four type of
fairness: distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice.
The scale for distributive justice measured the extent to which employees perceive outcomes to
be proportional to their contribution (sample item: The outcomes controlled by your organization
(or supervisor) reflect the effort you have put into your work.).
The scale for procedural justice measured the extent to which employees perceive the
procedures used to arrive at the outcomes as fair (sample item: The procedures used by the
organization (or supervisor) are applied consistently). The scale for interpersonal justice
measured the extent to which employees perceive interpersonal treatment as fair (sample item:
The organization (or supervisor) treated you in a polite manner. The scale for informational
39
justice measured the perceived adequacy of explanation (sample item: The organization (or
supervisor) provided a through explanation for the procedures.).
Trust. Robinsons (1996) seven item scale was adapted to measure employees trust in
the organization and supervisor. One item from the original scale, I dont think my employer
treats me fairly was dropped because of the possibility of fairness confounding the relationship
between fairness and trust. Thus, the adapted measure was a 6 item scale that measured the
extent to which employees trust both the organization and the supervisor (sample item: I believe
this organization (or supervisor) has high integrity.).
Perceived Organizational Support The short form of the Survey of Perceived
Organizational Support Perceptions was used to measure employees perceptions of
organizational support (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). It includes the 8
highest loading items representing both components of perceived organizational support; the
work-related and socio-emotional support (sample item: Help is available from the organization
when I have a problem.).
Leader Member Exchange (LMX). Employees perception of leader member exchange
relationship was measured using the scale adapted from Liden and Graen (1980) and Wayne et
al., (1997). (sample item: My supervisor will be personally inclined to help solve problems in my
work.).
Pilot Testing. Before administrating the final survey to participants, it was pilot tested on
10 randomly selected employees. Since most of the measures included in employees survey
were based on past research and were reliable and valid, it was considered more important to
identify and correct any potential problems associated with the readability and/or
understandability of survey items than testing for reliability. Thus, employees selected for pilot
40
Table 1: Employee Survey Measures
______________________________________________________________________________
Fairness (Colquitt, 2001)
Organizational Distributive Justice
Please respond to the following regarding the outcomes you potentially receive that are decided
by your organization. The outcomes that are controlled by the organization .
1. . reflect the effort you have put into your work.
2. . are appropriate for the work you have completed.
3. . reflected what you contributed to the organization.
4. . justified given your performance.
Organizational Procedural Justice
Please respond to the following questions regarding the procedures used by your organization to
make decisions. The procedures used by your organization to make decisions
1. . are applied consistently.
2. . are free of bias.
3. . are based on accurate information.
4. . uphold ethical and moral standards.
5. . allow for you to express your views and feelings
6. . allow for you to appeal the outcomes arrived at by those procedures.
Organizational Interpersonal Justice
Please respond to the following items regarding the way procedures are carried out by the
organization. With respect to carrying out procedures, the organization ..
1. . treated you in a polite manner.
2. . treated you with dignity.
3. . treated you with respect.
4. . refrained from improper remarks or comments.
Organizational Informational Justice
Please respond to the following items regarding the way procedures are carried out by the
organization. With respect to carrying out procedures, the organization ..
1. . communicated candidly with you.
2. . explained procedures thoroughly.
3. . offered adequate explanations.
4. . communicated details in timely manner.
5. . tailored communications to your specific needs.
Supervisory Distributive Justice
Please respond to the following regarding the outcomes which are controlled by your supervisor.
The outcomes that are controlled by your supervisor..
1. . reflected the effort you have put into your work.
2. . are appropriate for the work you have completed.
3. . reflected what you contributed to the organization.
4. . justified given your performance.
Supervisory Procedural Justice
Please respond to the following questions regarding the procedures used by your supervisor. The
procedures used by your supervisor to make decisions
1. . are applied consistently.
41
2. . are free of bias.
3. . are based on accurate information.
4. . upheld ethical and moral standards.
5. . allow for you to express your views and feelings
6. . allow for you to appeal the outcomes arrived at by those procedures.
Supervisory Interpersonal Justice
Please respond to the following items regarding the interpersonal treatment that you received
from your supervisor. With respect to the interpersonal treatment, supervisor..
1. . treated you in a polite manner.
2. . treated you with dignity.
3. . treated you with respect.
4. . refrained from improper remarks or comments.
Supervisory Informational Justice
Please respond to the following items regarding the information provided to you about the
procedures used by your supervisor. With respect to carrying out procedures,
1. . candid communication was present
2. . through explanation about the procedures was provided.
3. . adequate explanation was offered.
4. . detailed communication in a timely manner was provided.
5. . tailored communication specific to your needs was provided.
______________________________________________________________________________
Trust (Based on Robinson, 1996)
Organizational Trust
1. I believe this organization has high integrity.
2. I can expect this organization to treat me in a consistent and predictable fashion.
3. This organization is not always honest and truthful.
4. In general, I believe this organizations motives and intentions are good.
5. This organization is open and upfront with me.
6. I am not sure I fully trust this organization.
Supervisory Trust
1. I believe my supervisor has high integrity.
2. I can expect my supervisor to treat me in a consistent and predictable fashion.
3. My supervisor is not always honest and truthful.
4. In general, I believe my supervisors motives and intentions are good.
5. My supervisor is open and upfront with me.
6. I am not sure I fully trust my supervisor.
______________________________________________________________________________
Perceived Organizational Support (POS; Based on Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, &
Sowa, 1986)
1. Even if I did the best job possible, the organization would fail to notice.
2. Help is available from the organization when I have a problem.
3. The organization really cares about my well-being.
4. The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work.
5. The organization cares about my opinions.
6. The organization shows very little concern for me.
7. The organization strongly considers my goals and values.
42
8. The organization is willing to extend itself in order to help me perform my job to the best
of my ability.
______________________________________________________________________________
Leader Member Exchange (Based on Liden & Graen, 1980; Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997;
Janssen & Yperen, 2004)
1. My supervisor would be personally inclined to help me solve problems in my work.
2. My working relationship with my supervisor is effective.
3. I have enough confidence in my supervisor that I would defend and justify his/her
decisions if he or she were not present to do so.
4. My supervisor considers my suggestions for change.
5. My supervisor understands my problems and needs.
6. My supervisor recognizes my potential.
43
testing were asked to provide feedback on the overall content of survey items in terms of
readability and understandability. Furthermore, participants were also asked if all of the items
were applicable, and if the referent level (e.g., organization vs. supervisor) was clear.
Employees provided written feedback on the margins as well as at the end of the survey.
Although overall feedback was quite positive, some minor changes were made in the survey
items so that the survey could be better understood. For example, items measuring equity-
sensitivity were re-written to further clarify the meaning. Also, instructions were further clarified
to clearly emphasize the supervisor as a referent level. In addition, some items about the
promotion policy were also included in the survey.
Supervisor Survey
The supervisors survey included 10 variables: creativity-relevant behaviors: information-
sharing, risk taking and social loafing and six political tactics including, assertiveness,
ingratiation, rationality, coalition, exchange and upward appeal, and creativity. A full list of
items for each of the measure is given in Table 2. All items were measured on a seven-point
Likert type scale with one being either to a greater extent or strongly agree to seven being
either to a smaller extent or strongly disagree. A sample supervisory survey is included in
Appendix 6.
Information-sharing. There is no established scale for measuring information-sharing
behavior. Anderson and West (1998) developed a reliable and valid scale for measuring team
climate supportive of innovation. One of the factors or dimension of innovation-supportive
climate was team participation, which was designed to tap three dimensions of participation, one
of which was information-sharing. In their study (Anderson & West, 1998), the information-
44
Table 2: Supervisor Survey Measures
______________________________________________________________________________
Information-sharing (Based on Anderson & West, 1996)
The extent to which you agree or disagree that this employee ..
1. shares work-related information with others rather than keeping it to himself or herself.
2. keeps others informed about work-related issues.
3. makes real attempts to share information with others.
4. shares information which he/she things might be helpful to others.
______________________________________________________________________________
Risk-taking (Based on Calantone et al., 2003; Sitkin & Pablo, 1992)
The extent to which you agree or disagree that this employee ..
1. considers failure of some ideas as being normal.
2. offers ideas, knowing that some will fail.
3. suggests drastically new ways of looking at the problem even when he/she is unsure of
the outcome.
4. offers ideas, which if fail, might affect his/her reputation.
______________________________________________________________________________
Social loafing (Based on George, 1992)
The extent to which you agree that this employee.
1. defers responsibility of actively suggesting new ideas.
2. puts forth less effort in brainstorming sessions.
3. avoids offering new ideas or suggestions, knowing that others will.
4. spends less time solving problems, knowing that others will as they require.
______________________________________________________________________________
Political Behaviors (Schiresheim & Hinkin, 1990)
While engaging in activities that are likely to enhance their performance (such as requesting
information helpful to himself/herself and/or gathering support for their ideas), this employee
Assertiveness
1. uses a forceful manner; tries to demanding and sets deadlines.
2. expresses his/her anger verbally.
3. has showdown in which he/she confronts others face-to-face.
Ingratiation
1. make the person feel good about himself/herself before making his/her request.
2. acts very humbly to the person while making his/her request.
3. acts in a friendly manner prior to asking for what he/she want.
Rationality
1. present the person with information in support of his/her point of view.
2. explains the reasons for his/her request.
3. uses logic to convince the person.
Coalitions
1. obtains the support of co-workers to back up his/her request.
2. obtains the support of his/her subordinates to back up his/her request.
3. mobilizes other people in the organization to help him/her in influencing the person.
45
Exchange
1. offers an exchange (e.g. if you do this for me, I will do something for you).
2. reminds the person of past favors that he/she did for them.
3. offers to make a personal sacrifice if the person does what he/she wants (e.g. work late,
work harder, do his/her share of the work, etc.).
Upward Appeal
1. makes a formal appeal to higher levels to back up his/her request.
2. obtains the informal support of higher ups.
3. relies on the chain of command - on people higher up in the organization who have
power over the person.
______________________________________________________________________________
Creativity (Developed on the basis of companys definition of creativity)
In order to bring down the cost of operations this employee
1. .seeks and accepts new challenges.
2. .creates new opportunities.
3. .offers imaginative ideas and solutions to problems.
4. .steps outside the traditional boundaries and constraints.
In order to improve the quality of products and services this employee..

1. .seeks and accepts new challenges.
2. .creates new opportunities.
3. .offers imaginative ideas and solutions to problems.
4. .steps outside the traditional boundaries and constraints.
______________________________________________________________________________
46
sharing scale was a team level construct and measured the extent to which employees perceive
that team members are sharing information with each other. The items from this scale were
adapted to measure individual information-sharing behaviors. The scale measured the extent to
which employees share information with others (sample item: This employee share work-related
information with others rather than keeping it to himself/herself.).
Risk taking. There are no established scales to measure risk-taking behaviors and thus, a
scale was constructed specifically for this study by creating items based on the scale developed
by Calantone et al., (2001) to measure top managements risk taking behaviors. In addition, new
items were developed based on the three dimensions of risk-taking behaviors that are associated
with uncertain, difficult to realize or radical outcomes, as proposed by Sitkin and Pablo (1993).
The scale measured the extent to which employees are willing to engage in risk-taking behaviors
(sample item: This employee considers failure of some ideas as being normal.).
Social loafing. Georges (1992) social loafing scale was adapted and rephrased to reflect
social loafing within the context of creativity. The adapted scale measured the extent to which
employees hold back or slack-off their efforts in relation to creativity (sample item: this
employee defers responsibility of actively suggesting new ideas.)
Political behaviors. Schiresheim and Hinkins (1990) refined version of the Kipnis et al.s
(1980) scale for political behaviors was used to assess the extent to which employees engaged in
political activities/behaviors. The scale measured the extent to which employees engage in one or
more of the six different influence tactics, assertiveness, ingratiation, rationality, coalition,
exchange and upward appeal, to either gather information that may be of use or get ideas
accepted.
47
Creativity. The measure for creativity was developed for this study on the basis of
companys definition of creativity (job description and KPA). This approach to assessing
creativity has been advocated and previously used by researchers such as Amabile (1996) and
West and Anderson (1996). In this company creativity implies ideas, suggestions and/or
solutions to a problem that would either improve the production process thereby reducing the
cost of operations or improving the quality of products and services. Thus, creativity was
measured along two dimensions: cost of operations and improvement in the quality of products
and services (sample item: In order to bring down the cost of operations (or improve the quality
of products and services), this employee seeks and accepts new challenges.).
Pilot testing. Like employees survey, the supervisors survey was pilot tested before
being distributed to study participants. As in case of employees survey, given that most of the
measures were based on past research, it was considered more important to focus on the
readability and/or understandability of survey items. Moreover, it was not possible to pilot test
the survey on large enough sample to run statistical reliability and other tests, given that total
participants for the final study was only 61. As such, six supervisors were asked to provide
feedback on the overall content of survey items in terms of their readability, applicability, and/or
understandability. Overall the feedback was quite positive with extremely minor changes.
Data Analysis
Before doing any statistical analyses, the data were tested for accuracy by verifying
descriptives, minimum and maximum range and randomly testing cases for the accuracy of data
entry. EQS verion 6.0 was used for model estimation and hypotheses testing. This section
discusses the issues involved in the use of EQS for model estimation and hypotheses testing.
48
Model Estimation and Hypotheses Testing
The full social exchange model of creativity was tested using EQS 6.0 structural equation
modeling software. First, a confirmatory factor analysis for all the variables was performed to
test whether the measured variables loaded as expected. Separate confirmatory factor analyses
were run on the employees and supervisors data. For employees data, separate confirmatory
factor analyses were performed for all the variables measured at the organizational and
supervisory level. In addition, separate confirmatory factor analyses were performed for each
construct at both the organizational and supervisor level.
Based on the confirmatory factor analyses results, single indicators were formed for all
the variables shown in the model expect for organizational and supervisor fairness, in which case
single factors were formed for each type of fairness. For each single indicator, the path from the
latent factor to the indicator was set equal to one, and the error variance was set equal to the
variance of the scale multiplied by one minus the reliability of the scale (e.g., Hayduk, 1987).
Due to the large sample size requirements, it was not possible to run the full information model
and hence, single indicator variables were used to test the hypothesized model.
The model was estimated using maximum likelihood estimation. Although several fit
indices are reported in result outputs of EQS run, two fit indices are considered particularly
important (e.g., Hoyle & Panter, 1995), and hence, will be reported and used to interpret the
results in this study. The two fit indices are the nonnormed fit index (NNFI) and comparative fit
index (CFI); the NNFI and CFI estimates of .90 or higher are generally considered as adequate
fit to the data (e.g., Bollen, 1989), though recently, some researchers such as (Bentler & Hu,
1995) recommend estimates of .95 or higher to have good fit to the data. In addition, the root
mean square error value (RMSEA; MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996) will also be
49
reported as it indicates the extent to which the residuals in the model differ from zero; the higher
the RMSEA value, poorer the model fit. The RMSEA value greater than .10 indicates a poorer
fit. Although chi square value is reported, it is not used as much in interpreting results because of
its sensitivity to the sample size (e.g., Bollen, 1989). Once fit indices indicate an acceptable
model fit, individual path coefficients are examined to test for individual hypotheses as put forth
in chapter 3.
Summary
This chapter summarized the methodological issues involved and steps taken to test the
social exchange model of creativity. The next chapter discusses the results.
50
Chapter 5: RESULTS
This chapter begins with a discussion of confirmatory factor analyses and the
identification of variables to be included in the structural equation model. Test results for the
originally hypothesized model are reported, along with those of several alternative exploratory
models. Tests of hypotheses are reported for both the originally hypothesized model as well as
the final exploratory model.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Initial confirmatory factor analyses were run to confirm the factor structure of all the
variables in the social exchange model of creativity. For all confirmatory analyses, the error
terms for all the reverse coded items in a factor structure were allowed to covary a priori.
Separate factor analyses were run on employees and supervisors data, results of which are
reported in the following sections.
Employees Data
Employees data included 65 items that were expected to form twelve factors. The first
step involved testing for internal validity for all of the variables, and therefore, a series of
confirmatory factor analyses were run to test whether the items were internally consistent and
formed the expected factor structure. The results revealed adequate to good fit for all models and
supported the a priori factor structure for organizational justice, supervisory justice,
organizational trust, supervisory trust, perceived organizational support and leader member
exchange. The results for these four confirmatory factor analyses were as follows: (1)
organizational justice: 2 (166, N = 205) = 383.47, NNFI = .92, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .09, (2)
supervisory justice: 2 (166, N = 205) = 377.30, NNFI = .93, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .11, (3)
organizational trust and supervisory trust: 2 (50, N = 205) = 172.94, NNFI = .88, CFI = .91,
51
RMSEA = .12, and (4) perceived organizational support and leader member exchange: 2 (88, N
= 205) = 193.683, NNFI = .94, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .81. Also, for results see Figure 3 though 6.
The second step involved testing for discriminant or external validity by running
confirmatory factor analyses on all of the items. The full model would have required 195
parameters to be estimated. The final sample size of 205 (of 223 employee surveys returned,
only 205 were usable, having the corresponding supervisory survey data),was significantly short
of the recommended five to one parameter ratio (Bentler & Byrne, 1995); thus, it was not
possible to run full confirmatory factor analyses. Therefore, the confirmatory factor analyses
were broken down into two separate analyses based on the level (i.e., organization and
supervisor).
Although this approach reduced the number of parameters to be estimated to 47, it still
did not meet the recommended 5:1 ratio. To overcome the sample size restrictions, parcels were
formed by combining randomly selected items from the measures of each variable. Given that all
the measures were well established and their factor structure had already been tested, this
approach to parceling was considered appropriate (Bentler & Byrne, 1995). Parcels were formed
for all the variables except interpersonal justice since it only had four items. The parcels are
shown in Table 3.
The results of the confirmatory factor analyses for both the organizational and
supervisory levels revealed good fit for the measurement model. For the organizational level, 2
(75, N = 205) = 205.32, NNFI = .93, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .10. For the supervisory level, 2 (75,
N = 205) = 142.60, NNFI = .97, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .07. The results are also shown in Figure 7
and 8. Based on these results, as well that of the confirmatory factor analyses run on individual
factors, the multiple indicators were combined into single variables to be included in the final
52
Figure 3: CFA Results on Organizational Justice
.49 ODJ 1
.87
.41 ODJ 2 .91 Organizational

.92 Distributive Justice
.40 ODJ 3
.87
.49 ODJ 4
.52 OPJ 1
.86
.59 OPJ 2
.81
.47 OPJ 3 .88 Organizational

.86 Procedural Justice
.51 OPJ 4
.82
.69 .92
.73 OPJ 5 .65
.76 OPJ 6 .59

Organizationa
.81
l Justice
OPJ 7
.85
.46 OIJ 1
.89 .92
Organizational
.37 OIJ 2 .93
Interpersonal
.88
.47 OIJ 3
.69 OIJ 5
.73
.49 OIJ 6
.87
Organizational
.90
.43 OIJ 7 Informational
.87
.49 OIJ 8
.79
.61 OIJ 9
2 (166, N = 205) = 383.47, NNFI = .92, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .09;

Standardized solution shown.
53
Figure 4: CFA Results on Supervisory Justice
.50 SDJ 1
.86
.40 SDJ 2 .92 Supervisory

.44 SDJ 3
.87
.49 SDJ 4
.62 SPJ 1
.78
.49 SPJ 2
.87
.47 SPJ 3 .88 Supervisory

.82 Procedural Justice .86
.57 SPJ 4
.78 .96
.63 SPJ 5 .81
.59 SPJ 6 .72

Supervisory
Justice
.69 SPJ 7
.46 SIJ 1
.83
.89 .88
Supervisory
.48 SIJ 2 .88
Interpersonal Justice
.91
.41 SIJ 3
.62 SIJ 5
.79
.49 SIJ 6
.87
Supervisory
.92
.40 SIJ 7
Informational Justice
.90
.44 SIJ 8
.74
.67 SIJ 9
2 (166, N = 205) = 377.30, NNFI = .93, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .11;

Standardized solution shown.
54
Figure 5: CFA Results on Organizational and Supervisory Trust
.58 Otrust 1
.81
.78 Otrust 2
.63
.73 ROtrust 3 .69 Organizational

.73 Trust
.68 Otrust 4
.81
.59 Otrust 5 .61
.79 ROtrust 6
.53 Strust 1
.85
.66 Strust 2
.75
.81 RStrust 3 .59 Supervisory

.84 Trust
.54 Strust 4
.87
.49 Strust 5 .62
.78 RStrust 6
2 (50, N = 205) = 172.94, NNFI = .88, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .12 Standardized solution shown;
All factors allowed to covary (not shown).
55
Figure 6: CFA Results on POS and LMX
.85 SRPOS 1
.64 POS 2
.52
.49 POS 3 .77
.87
.52 POS 4
.85 Perceived
.59 POS 5 .80 Organizational Support
.53
.84 RPOS 6
.82
.57 POS 7 .73
.69 POS 8
.68 LMX 1
.73
.64 LMX 2
.76
.57 LMX 3 .82

Leader-Member
.54 LMX 4 .84 Exchange
.88
.47 LMX 5
.85
.53 LMX 6
.85
.53 LMX 7
2 (88, N = 205) = 193.683, NNFI = .94, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .81

Standardized solution shown; All factors allowed to covary (not shown).
56
Table 3: Parcels of Variables Used in CFA of Employee Data
Variable Parcel Label Items Mean (sd)

Organizational Distributive Justice PODJ 1 ODJ 1, 3 4.27 (1.70)
PODJ 2 ODJ 2, 4 4.32 (1.60)
Organizational Procedural Justice POPJ 1 OPJ 1, 3 4.15 (1.63)
POPJ 2 OPJ 2, 4, 6 4.0 ( 1.42)
POPJ 3 OPJ 5, 7 3.82 (1.52)
Organizational Informational Justice POIFJ 1 OIPJ 5, 7 4.18 (1.51)
POIFJ 2 OIPJ 6, 8, 9 4.19 (1.50)
Supervisory Distributive Justice PSDJ 1 SDJ 1, 3 4.78 (1.45)
PSDJ 2 SDJ 2, 4 4.77 (1.45)
Supervisory Procedural Justice PSPJ 1 SPJ 1, 3 4.87 (1.42)
PSPJ 2 SPJ 2, 4, 6 4.68 (1.34)
PSPJ 3 SPJ 5, 7 4.77 (1.33)
Supervisory Informational Justice PSIFJ 1 SIPJ 5, 7 4.96 (1.37)
PSIFJ 2 SIPJ 6, 8, 9 4.78 (1.40)
Organizational Trust POtrust 1 Otrust 1, 2, 3 4.68 (1.33)
POtrust 2 Otrust 4, 5, 6 4.61 ( 1.30)
Supervisory Trust PStrust 1 Strust 1, 2, 3 4.97 (1.30)
PStrust 2 Strust 4, 5, 6 5.10 (1.34)
Perceived Organizational Support PPOS 1 POS 1, 2, 3 4.18 (1.47)
PPOS 2 POS 4, 5, 6 4.36 (1.34)
PPOS 3 POS 7, 8 4.36 (1.50)
Leader Member Exchange PLMX 1 LMX 1, 3 ,5 5.15 (1.30)
PLMX 2 LMX 2, 4 5.48 (1.15)
PLMX 3 LMX 6, 7 5.15 (1.42)
N = 205
57
Figure 7: CFA Results on Organizational level variables
.35 PODJ1
.94
Organizational
.37 PODJ2
.40 POPJ1
.92
Organizational
.31 POPJ2 .95
Procedural Justice
.73
.69 POPJ3
.47 OIPJ1
.88
.40 OIPJ2 .92 Organizational
.87
.49 OIPJ3
.38 POIFJ1
.93
Organizational
.92 Informational Justice
.39 POIFJ2
.44 POtrust1
.90
Organizational Trust
.98
.47 POtrust
.49 PPOS1
.87
Perceived
.42 PPOS2
.91 Organizational Support
.82
.56 PPOS3
2 (75, N = 205) = 205.32, NNFI = .93, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .10

58
Figure 8: CFA Results on Supervisory level variables
.41 PSDJ1
.91
Supervisory
.31 PSDJ2
.46 PSPJ1
.89
Supervisory
.22 PSPJ2 .97
Procedural Justice
.81
.57 PSPJ3
.47 SIPJ1
.88
.46 SIPJ2 .89 Supervisory
.92
.39 SIPJ3
.37 PSIFJ1
.93
Supervisory
.92 Informational
.39 PSIFJ2
.46 PStrust1
.90
Supervisory Trust
.93
.36 PStrust1
.31 PLMX1
.95
Leader Member
.45 PLMX2 .90 Exchange
.89
.46 PLMX3
2 (75, N = 205) = 142.60, NNFI = .97, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .07

59
structure model. The alpha reliabilities for all the variables from employees survey were in the
acceptable range of above 0.70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1977), and ranged from 0.86 to 0.94;
alpha reliabilities for all the variables are reported in Table 4.
Table 4: Variables Created for Structural Modeling (Employee Survey)
Variable # Items Alpha

Organizational Distributive Justice 4 0.94
Organizational Procedural Justice 7 0.91
Organizational Interpersonal Justice 3 0.92
Organizational Informational Justice 5 0.92
Organizational Trust 6 0.86
Perceived Organizational Support 8 0.91
Supervisory Distributive Justice 4 0.94
Supervisory Procedural Justice 7 0.93
Supervisory Interpersonal Justice 3 0.92
Supervisory Informational Justice 5 0.92
Supervisory Trust 6 0.90
Leader Member Exchange 7 0.94
Supervisors Data
Supervisor data included 38 items comprising ten a priori factors: information sharing,
risk taking, social loafing, assertiveness, ingratiation, rationality, coalition, upward appeal, and
creativity. Since there were no well established scales for measuring information sharing, risk
taking, and creativity, the scales for these measures had to be constructed for this study. Even
though the constructed measures were grounded in theoretical and empirical research in the field
or were adapted from similar existing scales, internal validity was still a concern. Therefore,
unlike employees data, it was decided to run confirmatory factor analyses on all the items at one
time.
However, it was not possible to run one confirmatory factor analyses because such a
model would have required 141 parameters to be estimated. This would have severely stretched
60
the sample size. As such, two confirmatory factor analyses were run; one for information-
sharing, risk taking, social loafing, and creativity and the other for all of the six political tactics.
First, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on information sharing, risk taking, social
loafing and creativity. Initial analyses for creativity revealed that the two types of creativity,
reducing the cost of operations and improving the quality of product and services, were highly
correlated (r = 0.97), indicating that the two types are not distinct as was projected by the
organization. As such, the two types of creativity were collapsed to form one variable termed
creativity.
A full confirmatory factor analyses was run on all the items for information sharing, risk
taking, social loafing and creativity. Initial results revealed a marginal model fit. Based on these
initial results, two items (Risk taking # 1 and Information sharing # 2) seemed to cross load on to
other factors. These relationships did not make sense either theoretically or substantively.
Therefore, adding parameters for the sake of improving model fit did not seem warranted, and
the items were dropped from the model in order to achieve a clean factor structure. Once these
two items were dropped, the fit indices revealed acceptable model fit: 2 (120, N = 205) =
285.626, NNFI = .90, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .08. See Table 3 for summary results; results for the
final model are also shown pictorially in Figure 10.
Table 5: Summary of CFA Model Results for Supervisors Data (Information sharing, Risk
taking, Social loafing, and Creativity)
Model Item(s) Deleted 2 NNFI CFI RMSEA
Baseline ------ 439.756, df = 155 0.85 0.88 0.10
1 Risk taking 1 358.632, df = 136 0.87 0.90 0.09
Final Information sharing 2 285.626, df = 120 0.90 0.92 0.08
N = 205
Second confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on all the items for political tactics.
The originally hypothesized model did not converge, and hence, the results could not be
61
Figure 9: CFA Results on supervisor-provided data
.64 RSKS 2
.77
.74
Risk Taking
.68 RSKS 3
.50
.87 RSKS 4
.70 INFSH 1
.71
.51 INFSH 3 .86 Information-Sharing

.89
.45 INFSH 4
.73 SCLF 1
.68
.87 SCLF 2 .49
Social Loafing
.58
.81 SCLF 3
.98
.25 SCLF 4
.73 CREAT 1
.66 CREAT 2
.68
.52 CREAT 3 .76
.86
.75 CREAT 4
.67
Creativity
.58 CREAT 5 .81
.80
.60 CREAT 6
.88
.48 CREAT 7
.75 CREAT 8
2 (120, N = 205) = 285.63, NNFI = .90, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .08

62
interpreted. As a next step, exploratory factor analysis using varimax rotation for political
behaviors was run to identify any specific items that were crossloading on other factors. The
results showed that three items in particular, assertiveness # 1, exchange # 3, and upward appeal
# 3, were not loading as hypothesized and crossloading onto other factors. Therefore, it was
decided to drop these items from the model. Although the model fit is still not adequate, it was
decided to make no more modifications to this model mainly because the LM tests revealed no
specific path or item that was specifically contributing to the model misfit. Moreover, given that
the measures have been widely used and are considered reliable and valid (e.g., Kipnis et al.,
1980), it did not seem justified to alter the factor structure based on the results from this one
sample. Therefore, the existing factor structure was kept despite the poor model fit. See Table 4
for summary results. Results for the final model are also shown pictorially in Figure 8.
Table 6: Summary of CFA Model Results for Political Behaviors
Model Item(s) Deleted 2 NNFI CFI RMSEA

Baseline ----- Condition code on assertiveness, model did not converge, and
hence, results could not interpreted
1 Assertiveness 1 403.01, df = 104 0.67 0.75 0.13
2 Exchange 3 312.85, df = 89 0.72 0.80 0.12
Final Upward 3 279.00, df = 75 0.73 0.81 0.12
N = 205
Final Set of Variables to be included in the Structural Model
Based on the results of the confirmatory factor analyses, 10 supervisor-provided and 12
employee-provided variables were formed to be included in the structural model. The
supervisory variables are reported in Table 7, along with the number of items per scale and alpha
reliability. Except for assertiveness, rationality and upward appeal, the alpha reliabilities are in
the acceptable range (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1977). The poor reliabilities for these variables are
63
probably because of the political behavior factor structure not holding together as expected.
Table 8 reports the means, standard deviations, and correlations between these variables.
Table 7: Variables Created for Structural Modeling (Supervisor Survey)
Variable # Items Alpha

Information-Sharing 4 0.85
Risk-Taking 4 0.72
Social Loafing 4 0.77
Assertiveness 2 0.65
Ingratiation 3 0.74
Rationality 3 0.63
Coalition 3 0.80
Exchange 2 0.80
Upward Appeal 2 0.68
Creativity 8 0.80
N = 205
64
Figure 10: CFA Results on supervisor-provided data (political behaviors)
.75 ASR 2
.66
.80 Assertiveness
.61 ASR 3
.74 INGR 1
.67
.74 INGR 2 .67 Ingratiation

.79
.61 INGR 3
.77 RAT 1
.64
.58 RAT 2 .81 Rationality

.62
.79 RAT 3
.66 INGR 1
.75
.51 INGR 2 .86 Coalition

.69
.73 INGR 3
.51 EXC 1
.86
Exchange
.61 EXC 2 .79
.66 UPW 1
.75
.76 UPW 2 .66 Upward Appeal
2 (75, N = 205) = 287.74, NNFI = .73, CFI = .81, RMSEA = .11

65
Table 8: Correlation Matrix
M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Organizational Distributive 4.29 1.60
Justicea
2. Organizational Procedural 3.98 1.37 .75**
Justicea
3. Organizational Interpersonal 4.61 1.57 .64** .70**
Justicea
4. Organizational Informational 4.17 1.44 .68** .80** .77**
Justicea
5. Supervisory Distributive 4.78 1.43 .53** .58** .55** .61**
Justicea
6. Supervisory Procedural Justicea 4.76 1.28 .55** .59** .55** .58** .78**
7. Supervisory Interpersonal 5.25 1.27 .37** .44** .45** .43** .59**

Justicea
8. Supervisory Informational 4.86 1.34 .45** .52** .46** .55** .71**
Justicea
9. Organizational Trusta 4.63 1.24 .64** .71** .66** .72** .56**
10. Supervisory Trusta 5.03 1.27 .52** .53** .49** .54** .72**
11. Perceived Organizational 4.30 1.30 .65** .76** .68** .79** .64**
Supporta
12. Leader Member Exchangea 5.24 1.22 .42** .49** .52** .49** .72**
13. Information sharingb 5.32 1.01 -.03 -.06 -.12 -.12 .16*
14. Risk takingb 4.45 1.07 -.05 -.03 -.09 -.09 .02
15. Social loafingb 3.21 1.05 -.03 -.08 .09 .01 -
.18**
16. Assertivenessb 3.64 1.41 .01 .04 -.07 .04 -.03
17. Ingratiationb 5.19 1.02 .12 .08 .05 .12 .17*
18. Rationalityb 5.29 0.92 .05 -.04 .08 .02 .15*
19. Coalition buildingb 4.53 1.29 .07 .05 .03 .02 .12
20. Exchangeb 3.24 1.50 .04 .08 .12 .13 .07
21. Upward Appealb 4.50 1.29 .09 .12 .04 .12 .05
22. Creativityb 4.98 1.06 .03 .07 .04 .03 .23**
N = 205
a
indicates variables measured on Employee Survey
b
indicates variables measured on Supervisor Survey
* = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01
66
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7. Supervisory .76**
Interpersonal
Justicea
8. Supervisory .78** .72**
Informational
Justicea
9. Organizational .50** .45** .50**
a
Trust
10. Supervisory .71** .71** .73** .61**
a
Trust
11. Perceived .54** .44** .52** .85** .60**
Organizational
Supporta
12. Leader .76** .76** .76* .56** .86* .57**
Member
Exchangea
13. Information .03 .07 .06 -.02 .05 .02 .12
sharingb
14. Risk takingb -.05 -.03 -.04 .07 .04 .04 .03
b
15. Social loafing -.21** -.20** -.20** .06 -.19** -.04 -.18*
b
16. Assertiveness -.01 .02 -.04 -.03 -.05 .02 .07
b
17. Ingratiation .12 .12 .18* .02 .04 .10 .09
b
18. Rationality .10 .17* .10 .05 .08 .03 .15*
19. Coalition .09 .13 .08 .20** .13 .13 .20**
buildingb
20. Exchangeb .04 -.01 .02 .18* .03 .14* .05
21. Upward .05 .03 .02 .17* .05 .15* .07
Appealb
22. Creativityb .19** .16* .18* .02 .17* .02 .20**
N = 205
a
b
* = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01
67
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
b
14. Risk taking .34**
15. Social loafingb -.31** .09
16. Assertivenessb -.08 .04 .32**
17. Ingratiationb .27** .01 -.22** -.12
18. Rationalityb .48** .06 -.35** -.05 .43**
19. Coalition .35** .25** .04 .13 .30** .47**
buildingb
20. Exchangeb .01 .17* .32** .39** .12 .10 .47**
21. Upward Appealb .16* .44** -.08 .24** .11 .09 .51**
22. Creativityb .54** .25** -.47** -.09 .22** .38** .27**
20 21
21. Upward Appealb .45**
22. Creativityb .01 -.02
N = 205
a
b
* = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01
68
Structural Equation Modeling Results
The full structural model was tested using EQS 6.0. The model consisted of 22 variables.
Based on the confirmatory factor analyses, the items comprising each variable were combined to
form a single indicator of that variable. Given that all of the 22 variables were represented by a
single indicator, it was important to incorporate measurement error into model in order to assess
pure relationships (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). To incorporate measurement error, the paths
between each indicator and the corresponding variable were fixed to one and the error variances
were fixed to the value equal to one minus reliabilities multiplied by variance (e.g., Hayduk,
1987). These values are indicated in table 9.
Table 9: Fixed Values in Structural Models
Measured Variable Factor to Variable Error Variance

Patha Valueb
Organizational Distributive Justice 1.00 .15
Organizational Procedural Justice 1.00 .17
Organizational Interpersonal Justice 1.00 .19
Organizational Informational Justice 1.00 .16
Supervisory Distributive Justice 1.00 .12
Supervisory Procedural Justice 1.00 .12
Supervisory Interpersonal Justice 1.00 .12
Supervisory Informational Justice 1.00 .15
Organizational Trust 1.00 .22
Supervisory Trust 1.00 .16
Perceived Organizational Support 1.00 .15
Leader Member Exchange 1.00 .09
Information sharing 1.00 .18
Risk taking 1.00 .41
Social loafing 1.00 .26
Assertiveness 1.00 .69
Ingratiation 1.00 .28
Rationality 1.00 .32
Coalition building 1.00 .34
Exchange 1.00 .46
Upward Appeal 1.00 .50
Creativity 1.00 .09
a
all fixed to value of 1.00 (Hayduk, 1987)
b
= ( 1- alpha reliability) * variance of scale, N = 205
69
Testing the Hypothesized Model
The hypothesized model developed in chapter 3 was tested. As discussed in chapter 3, all
four forms of fairness both at the organizational and supervisor level are tested. Similarly, for
political tactics, the relationships with all the six types of political tactics, (assertiveness,
ingratiation, rationality, coalition, exchange and upward appeal) were examined. In addition to
the relationships hypothesized in the chapter 3, two additional set of paths were estimated. The
four types of fairness for each source (i.e., organization and supervisor) were allowed to covary a
priori. Past research on justice has shown that even though the four types of fairness are distinct
concepts, they tend to be correlated (e.g., Colquitt, 2001). The results revealed a poor fit
between the hypothesized model and data collected: 2 (182, N =205) = 638.221, NNFI =.72, CFI
= .78, RMSEA = .14 (see Figure 11).
Bagozzi and Baumgartner (1994) do not recommended interpreting results for individual
hypotheses from a model that has poor fit indices because in such a model there is a possibility of
certain relationships being enhanced or suppressed. To test paths for individual hypotheses, it was
necessary to improve the model fit. In order to improve the model fit, exploratory analyses were
done. The results of the LM tests and evidence from the past research and theory were used to
identify those paths that were contributing to model misfit. In the following section, the steps
involved in the exploratory analyses are discussed, and results are reported and compared for the
originally hypothesized and final exploratory model.
Exploratory Analyses
Given that LM test results are based purely on statistical analyses, only those paths that
seemed logical on the basis of past theory and research were included in the respecified models.
Before moving further, at this point, it is important to emphasize that caution should be exerted when
interpreting the results of exploratory analyses because these results are primarily data driven and
should be replicated in future research before firm conclusions are drawn (MacCallum, 1986).
70
Figure 11: Hypothesized Social Exchange Model INFSH
ODJ -.14
.17 .22
.49
RSKS
OTRUST
OPJ .28* .26*
-.09
.99 -.12
-.09 .12 SCLF
OIPJ .56* POS -.39*
-.52*
.04 ASRT
OIFJ .04
-.19
.10
INGR -.01
.02 Creativity
SDJ -.03
.06
.12 RAT .07
.28* LMX .14*
SPJ .21
-.17*
.14
.05 COA
.96
SIPJ .21 STRUST .31*
-.15
EXC
.34 .33
SIFJ -.13
2 (182, N =205) = 638.221, NNFI =.72, CFI = .78, RMSEA = .14 UPW
71
Exploratory Model 1. As a first step, based on the model results, three political behaviors,
(assertiveness, ingratiation, and rationality) that showed insignificant paths were dropped from
the model. The LM test results seemed to indicate that assertiveness and rationality were cross
loading with other behaviors in the model. It may be recalled that the confirmatory factor
analysis also revealed somewhat similar results in that these three variables were not holding
together as expected. In addition, poor reliabilities for assertiveness and rationality (0.64 and
0.63 respectively) further point toward measurement problems. Thus, it was decided to drop
these three variables.
The three remaining political behaviors, coalition building, exchange of benefits and
upward appeal, seem conceptually similar in that all the three are aimed at enhancing
collaboration with others (e.g., peers and supervisor) and involve active participation from
others. In contrast, assertiveness, ingratiation, and rational persuasion do not seem to have any
such common ground. Thus, both for statistical as well as theoretical reasons, assertiveness,
ingratiation, and rational persuasion were dropped from the model. The resulting model revealed
a significant improvement in the model fit, yet the overall fit indices still showed a relatively
poor fit to the data collected: 2 (131, N = 205) = 434.240, NNFI = .79, CFI = .84, RMSEA =
.13, 2 = 203.981, df = 41.
Exploratory Model 2. Even though the exploratory model 1 showed significant
improvement over the hypothesized model, the model itself did not fit adequately to the data
collected. As a second step to further improve the model fit, the covariance between the
disturbance terms for the following variables were freed: (1) information sharing and risk taking,
(2) coalition and exchange, (3) coalition and upward appeal, and (4) upward appeal and
72
exchange. The error terms of these variables were estimated on the basis of past research as well
LM test results.
In terms of information sharing and risk taking, a possible explanation for the correlation
could be creative personality traits such as divergent thinking and openness to experience (e.g.,
Feist, 1999) For example, a creative individual who is open to experience and engages in
divergent thinking is more likely to be open to feedback to learn and better understand the
problem as well as to explore risky and untried solutions to a problem. Therefore, creative
individuals are likely to take risk and share information with the purpose of seeking feedback, as
well as engage in risk taking behaviors. Yet another reason for these behaviors to covary could
be the companys work culture; employees in this company often work collaboratively in quality
circles to solve problems. The purpose of these quality circles is to provide employees with a
group where they can share information and ideas (however risky they might be). Given that
similar practices are observed throughout the organization, it is possible that such a culture
within the company may be causing employees behaviors such as information-sharing and risk-
taking.
In terms of the three remaining political tactics, individual characteristics such as being
socially adept, ambitious, and self-confident have been directly associated with the use of
political tactics by employees (e.g., Madison, Allen, Porter, Renwick, & Mayes, 1980). For
example, it is possible that employees who are self-confident are more likely than others to
engage in political tactics. Furthermore, the use of political tactics by employees is guided by the
organizations political norms (e.g., Allen & Porter, 1983). It is possible that the organizations
political norms are supportive of activities such as coalition building, exchange of benefits and
upward appeals, and thus, their use might be correlated. For these reasons, it was decided to
73
estimate covariance between the disturbances terms amongst the three political behaviors,
coalition, exchange and upward appeal. The resulting model revealed a significant improvement
over the previous model, yet the fit indices did not show an entirely adequate fit with the data
with NNFI being below the acceptable range: 2 (127, N =205) = 323.604, NNFI =.86, CFI = .90,
RMSEA = .107, 2 = 108.636, df = 4.
Exploratory Model 3. In this model, three additional paths were estimated, (1)
supervisory trust to organizational trust, (2) supervisory informational justice to leader member
exchange, and (3) organizational informational justice to perceived organizational support. Based
on the recommendations of LM test results, estimating these three paths could result in
significant improvement in the model fit. Moreover, these paths seemed in accordance with
theoretical and empirical research.
It seems logical that employees may utilize information about the supervisors
trustworthiness to infer the organizations trustworthiness. An analogy may be drawn from the
recruitment and selection literature, which shows that job applicants perceptions of recruiter
personality and mannerisms affect their evaluation of the company (e.g., Schmitt & Coyle, 1976;
Rynes, 1991). Yet another explanation can be offered on the basis of past research in decision
making (e.g., Kahneman & Tversky, 1982). It is also possible that the determination of
organizational trustworthiness may be a difficult and complex decision, and therefore, employees
might use information about supervisory trust as a proxy for inferring organizational
trustworthiness. Thus, the path from supervisory trust to organizational trust seems logical and is
estimated.
In addition, the paths between supervisory informational justice and leader member
exchange, and organizational informational justice and perceived organizational support were
74
also freed. Research on organizational justice has shown that employees perceptions of fairness
about a source form a basis for the social exchange relationship with that source, and hence, a
direct relationship between employees fairness perceptions and social exchange relationship
with that source (e.g., Rupp & Cropanzano, 2001). The LM test results suggest that
informational justice, both at the organizational and supervisory level, seems to be directly
impacting employees quality of exchange relationship with the organization and supervisor
respectively. Thus, the paths from organizational informational justice to POS and supervisory
informational justice to LMX were estimated. The results showed a significant improvement in
the model fit over the previous model: 2 (124, N = 205) = 291.414, NNFI =.88, CFI = .91,
RMSEA = .100, 2 = 32.91, df = 3.
Exploratory Model 4. A final model was run, in which risk taking and coalition building,
and any other paths that were insignificant at p < .10 level were dropped from the model. The
results revealed a significant improvement over the previous model while maintaining the
significance in terms of both the magnitude and strength of previously significant relationships.
The results revealed acceptable model fit to the data collected: 2 (104, N = 205) = 223.516,
NNFI =.91, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .095, 2 = 67.89, df = 20. Therefore, this model is
preferred because it is parsimonious explanation for the observed effect. The final model is
shown in the Figure 12. A summary of all exploratory structural equation modeling results is
provided in Table 10.
75
ODJ
Figure 12: Final Exploratory Model
INFSH
OPJ
-.15
.47* Otrust
.79* POS
.51*
OIPJ
.16 SCLF
.33*
.23* -.42*
OIFJ .17
CREAT
EXC .19
SDJ .28*
.23*
-.32*
.40* -.16
SPJ
Strust LMX
.68*
SIPJ .29*
.26 .32* UPW
SIFJ
2 (104, N = 205) = 223.516, NNFI =.91, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .095.
76
Table 10: Summary of Exploratory SEM Results
Model Change 2 2 NNFI CFI RMSEA

d.f d.f
Originally n.a. 638.221** n.a .72 .78 .143
Hypothesized 182
Model
Exploratory Dropped Assertiveness, 434.240** 203.981** .79 .84 .13
Model 1 Ingratiation, and 131 51
Rationality
Exploratory INFSH RSKS 323.604** 108.636** .86 .90 .107
Model 2 COA EXC 127 4
COA UPW
UPW EXC
Exploratory OIIFJ POS 291.414** 32.91** .88 .91 .100

Model 3 SIFJ LMX 124 3
STRUST OTRUST
Exploratory Dropped Risk taking, 223.516** 67.89** .91 .93 .095
Model 4 Coalition building and 104 20
any other insignificant
path at p< 0.10 level.
N = 205
* = p < .05, ** = p < .001
______________________________________________________________________________
Test of Individual Hypotheses
The test results of individual hypothesis paths are reported for both the initially
hypothesized model and final exploratory model. A summary of the standardized estimates of all
paths for the hypothesized and final exploratory model are reported in Table 11.
Hypotheses 1a and 1b. The first set of hypotheses predicted the relationship between all
four types of fairness at the organizational level and organizational trust. It may be recalled that
in the hypothesized model, hypothesis 1 specified the relationship between all four types of
fairness and organizational trust. For the purposes of clarity and interpretation, numbers have
been allotted for each type of fairness: 1 = distributive justice, 2 = procedural justice, 3 =
interpersonal justice, 4 = informational justice. At the organizational level, procedural justice
77
(H1a2) and informational justice (H1a4) are significantly related to organizational trust whereas
distributive (H1a1) and interpersonal justice (H1a3) are not significantly related to organizational
trust. At the supervisory level, distributive justice (H1b1) and interpersonal justice (H1b3) are
significantly, and informational (H1b4) is marginally, related to supervisory trust. Supervisory
procedural justice (H1b2) is not significantly related to supervisory trust. In addition, the four
types of fairness for each source (organization and supervisor) were allowed to covary in all
models; all covariances were significant (see Table 11 for standardized estimates).
Hypotheses 2a and 2b. The second set of hypotheses predicted the relationship between
organizational trust and POS (H2a), and supervisory trust and LMX (H2b). Both these
relationships were found significant.
Hypotheses 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d. The third set of hypotheses predicted relationship between
POS and employees creativity-relevant behaviors: such as information sharing (H3a), risk
taking (H3b), social loafing (H3c), assertiveness (H3d1), ingratiation (H3d2), rationality (H3d3),
coalition (H3d4), exchange (H3d5), and upward appeal (H3d6). Again, for the purpose of clarity
and interpretation, numbers have been allotted to all of the six political behaviors: assertiveness
(1), ingratiation (2), rationality (3), coalition (4), exchange (5), and upward appeal (6). POS was
found to be only marginally significantly related to upward appeal (H3d5) and exchange (H3d6)
and it was found to be marginally related to information sharing (H3a) but not in the predicted
direction. POS was not found to be significantly related to risk taking (H3b), social loafing
(H3c), assertiveness (H3d1), ingratiation (H3d2), rationality (H3d3) and coalition (H3d4).
Hypotheses 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d. The fourth set of hypotheses predicted relationship between
LMX and employees creativity relevant behaviors such as information sharing (H4a), risk
taking (H4b), social loafing (H4c), assertiveness (H4d1), ingratiation (H4d2), rationality (H4d3),
78
Table 11: Comparison of Standardized Estimates Between Hypothesized and Final Exploratory
Models for Tests of Hypotheses
Paths/Relationship Hyp # Hyp. Model Final Expl.

(Figure 9) Model
(Figure 10)
ODJ OPJ Covariance 0.79* 0.79*
ODJ OIPJ Covariance 0.75* 0.75*
ODJ OIFJ Covariance 0.72* 0.72*
OPJ OIPJ Covariance 0.81* 0.81*
OPJ OIFJ Covariance 0.85* 0.85*
OIPJ OIFJ Covariance 0.84* 0.83*
SDJ SPJ Covariance 0.87* 0.87*
SDJ SIPJ Covariance 0.67* 0.67*
SDJ SIFJ Covariance 0.76* 0.76*
SPJ SIPJ Covariance 0.83* 0.83*
SPJ SIFJ Covariance 0.89* 0.88*
SIPJ SIFJ Covariance 0.85* 0.84*
ODJ Organizational Trust 1a1 0.17 n.a
OPJ Organizational Trust 1a2 0.28* 0.47*
OIPJ Organizational Trust 1a3 -0.09 n.a
OIFJ Organizational Trust 1a4 0.56* 0.33*
OIFJ Perceived Organizational Support n.a 0.23*
SDJ Supervisor Trust 1b1 0.28* 0.40*
SPJ Supervisor Trust 1b2 0.14 n.a
SIPJ Supervisor Trust 1b3 0.21 0.29*
SIFJ Supervisor Trust 1b4 0.34* 0.26
SIFJ LMX n.a 0.32*
Organizational Trust Perceived Organizational Support 2a 0.99* 0.79*
Supervisor Trust Leader Member Exchange 2b 0.96* 0.68*
Supervisor Trust Organizational Trust n.a 0.28*
Perceived Organizational Support Information sharing 3a -0.13 -0.15
Perceived Organizational Support Risk taking 3b 0.26* n.a
Perceived Organizational Support Social loafing 3c -0.12 n.a
Perceived Organizational Support Assertiveness 3d1 0.04 n.a
Perceived Organizational Support Ingratiation 3d2 0.10 n.a
Perceived Organizational Support Rationality 3d3 -0.03 n.a
Perceived Organizational Support Coalition 3d4 0.21* n.a
Perceived Organizational Support Exchange 3d5 0.31* 0.16
Perceived Organizational Support Upward Appeal 3d6 0.33* 0.17
Leader Member Exchange Information sharing 4a 0.22* 0.23*
Leader Member Exchange Risk taking 4b -0.09 n.a
Leader Member Exchange Social loafing 4c -0.39* -0.32*
Leader Member Exchange Assertiveness 4d1 -0.19 n.a
Leader Member Exchange Ingratiation 4d2 0.02 n.a
79
Paths/Relationship Hyp # Hyp. Model Final Expl.
(Figure 9) Model
(Figure 10)
Leader Member Exchange Rationality 4d3 0.12 n.a
Leader Member Exchange Coalition 4d4 0.05 n.a
Leader Member Exchange Exchange 4d5 -0.15 n.a
Leader Member Exchange Upward Appeal 4d6 -0.13 n.a
Information sharing Creativity 5a 0.49* 0.51*
Risk taking Creativity 5b -0.12 n.a
Social loafing Creativity 5c -0.52* -0.42*
Assertiveness Creativity 5d1 0.04 n.a
Ingratiation Creativity 5d2 -0.01 n.a
Rationality Creativity 5d3 0.06 n.a
Coalition Creativity 5d4 0.07 n.a
Exchange Creativity 5d5 0.14* 0.19
Exchange Upward Appeal Covariance n.a 0.62*
Upward appeal Creativity 5d6 -0.17* -0.16
= p < 0.10; * = p < 0.05
80
coalition (H4d4), exchange (H4d5), and upward appeal (H4d6). LMX was significantly related
to information sharing (4a) and social loafing (H4c), but was not significantly related to risk
taking (H4b), assertiveness (H4d1), ingratiation (H4d2), rationality (H4d3), coalition (H4d4),
exchange (H4d5), and upward appeal (H4d6).
Hypotheses 5, 6, 7, 8. The final set of hypotheses predicted relationships between
employees creativity-relevant behaviors and creativity. Only information sharing (H5) and
social loafing (H7) were found to be significantly related to creativity, and exchange (H8-6) was
found to be marginally significantly to creativity. All the remaining hypotheses predicting the
relationship between creativity and risk taking (H6), assertiveness (H8-1), ingratiation (H8-2),
rationality (H8-3), coalition (H8-4) were found to be nonsignificant.
Comparison of Originally-Hypothesized and Final Exploratory Models. Again, as
mentioned earlier, the results of exploratory analyses should be carefully interpreted as these
results are primarily data driven, and hence, capitalize on chance. Therefore, these findings need
to be replicated in future research (MacCallum, 1986), nevertheless, the results are encouraging,
particularly for certain creativity-relevant behaviors. Even after several modifications were made
to improve the model fit, the overall pattern of relationships remained the same both in terms of
the significance level and magnitude, which suggests that the social exchange model of creativity
is meaningful. One final observation about the final exploratory model is that while the variance
explained for some of the factors was relatively high, it was relatively low for some of the other
factors, particularly creativity-relevant behaviors. The variance explained for all of the factors is
reported in Table 12.
81
Table 12: Explained Variance in Endogeneous Factors in the Final Exploratory Model
Factor Standardized Explained Variance

Coefficient for the
Disturbance Term
Organizational Trust .577 .667
Supervisory Trust .504 .745
Perceived Organizational Support .222 .95
Leader Member Exchange .286 .918
Information sharing .961 .077
Social loafing .946 .105
Exchange .985 .027
Upward appeal .986 .030
Creativity .649 .579
N = 205, Explained variance = 1 (standardized coefficient)2
Alternative Models
In addition to the exploratory models, several alternative models were run as well. The
purpose of running alternative models was twofold. First, it was important to explore the effect
of tenure and routine performance as control variables. To this end, two alternative models were
run. The first alternative model was run with tenure as a control variable i.e., tenure was included
in the model as an independent predictor of creativity and an additional path from tenure to
creativity was estimated. The second alternative model was run with routine performance both as
a control variable and dependent variable. The routine performance was included as a dependent
variable because creativity is an explicitly stated goal of the company, and is a part of
employees overall performances. Thus, there is a reason to suspect that a similar pattern of
relationships might hold for routine performance as well.
The secondary purpose of running alternative models was to understand the phenomenon
parsimoniously. To this end, the third alternative model was run using a second order factor
structure with the purpose of providing a broader view and perhaps, a parsimonious explanation
82
of the social exchange model of creativity. This section reports the results of all the three
alternative models.
Alternative model 1. In the first model, tenure was included as a control variable to see if
any of the relationships would change in terms of either strength or magnitude. Tenure was
considered as an important control mainly because high tenure or increased length of service is
not only desired but also rewarded by the organization. Therefore, it is likely that high tenure
may positively bias supervisors evaluations of employee creativity. This combined with the
evidence from the previous research on employee performance (Schmidt, Hunter, & Outbridge,
1986), indicated that it was important to include tenure as a control variable. The results showed
that tenure was not significantly related to creativity and that previously significant relationships
remained the same, both in terms of strength and magnitude. (see Figure 13): 2 (120, N = 205) =
257.059, NNFI =.903, CFI = .924, RMSEA = .091.
Alternative model 2. In the second model, routine performance was included as a control
variable to explore any changes in the relationships due to its presence. Routine performance was
also included as a dependent variable because it is possible that employees routine performance
can have halo effects on other measures of performance. The routine performance was measured
using a three item measure based on the companys definition of routine performance. The items
were as follows: In terms of planning and paying attention to detail regarding a days routine
task, this employee is (1) able to lay down a plan of action for days routine activities, (2) is able
to pay attention to details that affect the quality of the days routine work, and (3) is able to
perform days routine task well. The results showed that routine performance is only marginally
significantly related to creativity and its presence does not impact any other relationships in the
model (see figure 14): 2 (116, N = 205) = 254.343, NNFI =.903, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .093.
83
Alternative model 3. The final alternative model was run to understand the proposed effect at
a broader level. To this end, a second order factor structure was created for the following variables:
organizational justice, supervisory justice, information-sharing, risk taking, social loafing, coalition,
exchange, and upward appeal. Based on the results of the alternative model 2, in addition to
creativity, routine performance too was included in the model. The results of the model are: (see
Figure 15): 2 (159, N = 205) = 379.104, NNFI =.87, CFI = .89, RMSEA = .10. The results
showed that the supervisory level relational environment affects both creativity and routine
performance through employees exchange relationships with the supervisor. In contrast, the
organizational level relational environment was not found to influence creativity but influenced
routine performance through employees exchange relationship with the organization. Overall,
the results of this model provide some support for the social exchange model of creativity.
84
ODJ Figure 13: Alternative Model 1
INFSH
Tenure
OPJ
-.15
.47*
Otrust
.79* POS
.51* .04
OIPJ
.16 SCLF
.33*
.23* -.42*
OIFJ .17
CREAT
EXC .19
SDJ .28*
.23*
-.32*
.40* -.16
SPJ
Strust LMX
.68*
.29*
SIPJ
.26 .32* UPW
SIFJ
2 (120, N = 205) = 257.059, NNFI =.903, CFI = .924, RMSEA = .091.
85
ODJ Figure 14: Alternative Model 2
INFSH
OPJ
-.15 .57*
.47*
Otrust .45*
.79* POS
Routine
OIPJ
.16 SCLF -.34*
.33*
.23* -.37* .21
OIFJ .17
.51*
.03
EXC
SDJ .28*
.23* .19
-.32* CREAT
.40*
SPJ
Strust LMX .14

.68*
.29* -.09
SIPJ
.26 .32* UPW
SIFJ
2 (116, N = 205) = 254.343, NNFI =.903, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .093.
86
Figure 15: Alternative Model 3
.16*
Organizational
Justice
.80* .20* Routine
Organizational Info-share,
Trust risk, social .84*
.80* Perceived -.13 loaf
Organizational
Support .90*
.27*
.26*
.33* .05
Leader Member -.04
Exchange -.05
Politics
.65*
Supervisory -.03
Trust
.88*
Supervisory .33* Creativity
Justice
2 (159, N = 205) = 379.104, NNFI =.87, CFI = .89, RMSEA = .10
87
Chapter 6: Discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to test the social exchange model of creativity,
which proposed that (1) the relational environment within an organization will positively
influence employees perceived quality of exchange relationships, and (2) employees
perceptions of the quality of their exchange relationships will then facilitate creativity-relevant
behaviors, and ultimately, employee creativity. The secondary purpose of this study was also to
explore unique or multi-foci effects of the relational environment at the organizational and
supervisory level on creativity.
The data reported in this study were collected from a large chemical engineering plant.
The setting was particularly suited for the purpose of testing the social exchange model because
creativity is one of the explicitly stated organizational goals, which was a necessary condition for
testing this model. The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling techniques (EQS
version 6.0). This chapter summarizes and discusses the results and findings in view of existing
research in the field, followed by a discussion of the limitations and contribution of this study.
Finally, directions for future research are suggested.
The discussion of results is organized into three sections: (1) the first section discusses
the results for hypotheses (hypotheses 1 through 2) specified to test the linkage between the
relational environment both at the organizational and supervisory level and employees
perception of the quality of their exchange relationships, (2) the second section discusses the
results for all hypotheses (hypotheses 3 through 8) specified to test the linkage between the
perceived quality of exchange relationships and creativity-relevant behaviors, and their
subsequent impact on creativity, and (3) finally, the third section discusses the multi-foci effect
of the relational environment at the organizational and supervisory level on employee creativity.
88
Findings
The Hypothesized Social Exchange Model of Creativity
The EQS results revealed a poor fit between the originally proposed model and the data
collected, indicating that the hypothesized model may not be an accurate reflection of reality.
Post hoc analyses, which involved several modifications to the hypothesized model, resulted in
the final exploratory model that adequately fit the data collected. In addition to exploratory
models, alternative models were run to better understand the findings. The results and findings
from the final exploratory model and alternative models are discussed.
Relational Environment and the Quality of Exchange Relationships.
Fairness Trust. Of the four justice types, procedural and informational justice were
found to be significantly related to organizational trust, whereas distributive and interpersonal
justice were not related to organizational trust. Although Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001), in
their meta-analytic review, showed that three types of justice (distributive, procedural and
interactional) should be similarly associated with trust in the organization, other research
suggests that procedural and not distributive justice should be related to trust in the organization
(e.g., Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994).
The reason for the insignificant relationship between distributive justice and trust could
be that the outcomes controlled by the organization (i.e., organizational distributive justice) may
be situationally-specific (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991). Thus, the information regarding the
outcomes controlled by the organization may not be used in predicting future actions. For
example, certain discretionary rewards controlled by the organization, such as festival benefits or
bonus rewards, may depend on how well the organization has performed in that year. Given that
this may change from year to year, it is likely that distributive justice may not be related to
89
organizational trust. In comparison, procedural justice is not situationally-specific: procedures
and policies, once formed, are likely to generate expectation of fair treatment in the long run
(e.g., Konovsky & Pugh, 1991). Information regarding procedural justice provides confidence in
future actions. Thus, it seems that employees may be more likely to rely on procedural justice to
determine the trustworthiness of the organization. Therefore, procedural justice and not
distributive justice is found to be be related to organizational trust.
Furthermore, the meta-analytic review by Cohen-Charash and Spector (2002) showed
that interactional justice is significantly associated with trust in the organization. However, the
current studys results show that only the informational, and not the interpersonal, aspect of
interactional justice is positively related to organizational trust. The insignificant relationship
between interpersonal justice and organizational trust could suggest the lack of emotional aspect,
since interpersonal justice has been associated with emotions/affect (Bies & Tripp, 2001). Based
on these results, it may be concluded that employees trust in the organization builds primarily
on the fairness of the organizational procedures and policies, as well as the communication and
explanations provided by the organization.
In comparison, at the supervisory level, the results were slightly different. Unlike
organizational trust, distributive justice and not procedural justice was significantly related to
supervisory trust. Furthermore, interpersonal justice was found to be significantly and
informational justice was found to be marginally related to supervisory trust. It was particularly
surprising to find that procedural justice is not related to supervisory trust, particularly in view of
past research findings (e.g., van den Bos, et al., 1998), which suggest a strong relationship
between the two. One possible explanation for this finding could be that the employees may not
hold their supervisors responsible or accountable for formulating procedures, and instead see
90
them as only implementing the procedures and policies formulated by the company. This may be
particularly true in this company because many procedures are formulated by the corporate head
office, even though supervisors are responsible for their implementation. Therefore, in this
situation, employees may not hold supervisors responsible for the fairness of the procedures, and
hence, it may not affect their trust in the supervisor.
However, the question remains as to why employees would hold supervisors responsible
for the outcomes received (distributive justice) and not for the procedures utilized to arrive at
those outcomes (procedural justice). Although, at a first glance, this finding seems somewhat
contradictory, it may be possible to explain on the basis of the information gathered from several
conversations with employees and supervisors at the company site.
In this company, supervisors have full discretion over how procedures and policies are
implemented and used to allocate outcomes. For example, the performance appraisal systems is
developed and formulated by the corporate head office, whereas, the outcomes such as
performance ratings and merit-based rewards that are based on the appraisal system are under the
complete and direct control of supervisors. Supervisors have full discretion over the performance
ratings and/or merit-based rewards of employees. Thus, it is possible that employees in this
situation hold supervisors responsible for the outcomes and not for the procedures. Clearly,
future research is needed, but in this situation, it appears that employees separate the two.
Furthermore, the significant relationship between interpersonal justice and supervisory
trust may be reflective of the emotional/affective component of interpersonal trust. Unlike
organizational trust, supervisory trust is an interpersonal trust, which has an emotional/affective
component to it (e.g., Lewis & Weigert, 1985; McAllister, 1995). Overall, based on these
findings, it may be concluded that employees do not use all types of fairness, but instead rely on
91
different types of fairness to determine the trustworthiness of the organization versus the
supervisor. These findings could also be a reflection of the differences between organizational
and supervisory level trust. For example, supervisory trust and not organizational trust may have
emotional/affective aspect. Obviously, more research is warranted to further support these
relationships.
Yet another important finding that was not hypothesized a priori was a significant
relationship between supervisory trust and organizational trust. This finding is not entirely
surprising. Evidence for a similar relationship may be found in the research on recruitment and
selection, where job applicants perceptions of the recruiters personality and mannerisms have
been shown to affect their evaluation of the company (e.g., Schmitt & Coyle, 1976; Rynes,
1991). Yet another explanation for this relationship may also be drawn from the research on
decision making, which suggests the use of heuristics, or simplified rules in order to make
difficult and complex decisions (e.g., Khaneman & Traversky, 1982). It is possible that
determining the organizations trustworthiness may be difficult and complex, and therefore, trust
in supervisors may serve as a proxy for organizational trust. Thus, it is possible to understand
that employees trust in the supervisor may affect their evaluation of the organizations
trustworthiness.
In addition to the final exploratory model, an alternative model (three) was run with the
purpose of understanding the relationship between justice and trust at a more general level.
Second order factor structures for organizational and supervisory justice were used to run this
model, and the results revealed that when employees perceptions of all four justice types are
taken together, they are positively related to organizational and supervisory trust respectively.
92
Trust Perceived Quality of Exchange Relationships. As expected, trust in the
organization and the supervisor was found to be significantly related to POS and LMX. Two
additional relationships that were not hypothesized a priori were found to be significant: (1)
organizational informational justice to POS, and (2) supervisory informational justice to LMX.
What is interesting is the finding that only informational justice, both at the organizational, and
supervisory level and not any other justice type was found to be significantly directly related to
POS and LMX. In other words, the effect of informational justice, both at the organizational and
supervisory level, on POS and LMX respectively, was above and beyond its effect through trust.
A study by Rupp and Cropanzano (2001) found that only perceptions of interactional justice and
not procedural justice (distributive justice was not included in the model) of the organization and
supervisor were found to be significantly related to POS and LMX respectively. In general, the
findings of their study support the overall importance of interactional justice in influencing social
exchange relationships.
Based on the findings of the current study, it seems, of the two components of
interactional justice, informational justice seems to affect exchange relationships both through
trust as well as directly. A possible explanation for this finding could be the fact that supervisors
in this company expect employees to share work-related information on a continuous basis in
order for them to run the company efficiently and effectively. There are daily reports that take
place in the organization about work-related issues, the direction of which is from employees to
supervisors. There is no such formal requirement on the part of supervisors. Therefore, when
supervisors willingly share information with employees in a manner that is fair (informational
justice), such as offering explanations for the decisions made or communicating candidly, it is
93
likely to be received well by employees. This could directly impact their relationship with the
supervisor.
Again, these findings, combined with those from alternative model three, reveal a broader
pattern of relationships between justice, trust and social exchange relationship both at the
organizational and supervisory level. The results suggest that employees overall perceptions of
organizational and supervisory fairness may affect the quality of exchange relationships with the
organization (i.e., POS) and supervisor (i.e., LMX) directly as well as through trust. Therefore,
contrary to what has been suggested in past research (e.g., Aryee, Budhwar, & Zhen, 2002), trust
was not found to fully mediate the relationship between fairness perceptions and social exchange
relationships, although partial mediation is indicated. Thus, employees perceptions of fairness
play an important role in building high quality social exchange relationships both directly as well
through trust. Taken together, it may be concluded that the relational environments (i.e. fairness
and trust) at the organizational and supervisory level are likely to influence employees social
exchange relationships with the organization and supervisor. Of course, these findings should be
viewed with caution, particularly with respect to implied causality and common method bias,
because all the data were collected at one point in time and from one source only (i.e.,
employees).
Perceived Quality of Exchange Relationship Creativity
Perceived Organizational Support (POS) and Leader Member Exchange (LMX)
Creativity-Relevant Behaviors. It was hypothesized that both POS and LMX would be
significantly and positively related to creativity-relevant behaviors such as information sharing,
risk taking, political behaviors (assertiveness, rationality, ingratiation, coalition, exchange and
upward appeal), and negatively related to social loafing. I discuss the results for all the four
94
creativity-relevant behaviors: information sharing, risk taking and social loafing, followed by the
results for political tactics.
Information sharing, Risk taking, and Social loafing. The results were different for POS
and LMX. First, it was found that POS was not related to risk taking and social loafing. Also,
the relationship between POS and information sharing was marginally significant but not in the
predicted direction. Theoretically, it is unclear as to why high levels of perceived organizational
support would discourage employees from sharing work-related information. It is possible that
this could be a methodological problem arising out of random error due to the presence of many
variables as well as unexplained variance present in the model, particularly, given that POS and
information sharing are not negatively correlated (r = .02).
In contrast, LMX was found to be significantly related to both information sharing and
social loafing in the predicted directions. The relationship between LMX and risk taking was
found to be nonsignificant. The question remains with respect to the nonsignificant relationship
of LMX with risk taking despite some evidence for this relationship in past research (e.g., Bruce
& Scott, 1994). It is possible that there may be a problem in the way risk taking was
operationalized. Items such as offer ideas even if they affect my reputation and offer ideas
knowing that some will fail seem to suggest that risk taking has to be at the expense of
reputation or is associated with failure. It could be that in this company, reputation may be of
concern to employees, and even though employees may be taking risks and offering risky ideas
they may not do so at the expense of their reputations. Furthermore, in view of recent layoffs in
the company, employees may feel the need to protect their reputation or disassociate themselves
from the failures even more.
95
These findings, when taken together with those from the alternative model three, clearly
show that LMX and not POS is related to the second order factor structure of creativity-relevant
behavior created by using information sharing, risk taking and social loafing as indicators. The
reason for LMX and not POS being significantly related to creativity-relevant behaviors such as
information sharing and social loafing could be that these behaviors in particular may be seen as
in-role or required behaviors, given that creativity is a desired and stated goal of the company.
Past research has shown that LMX and not POS is associated with in-role behaviors (e.g., Wayne
et al., Setton et al., 1996). These findings suggest that creativity-relevant behaviors such as
information sharing and social loafing seem to assume in-role behavior status, particularly in
organizations that value creativity. Therefore, employees relationship with the supervisor and
not with the organization might affect creativity-relevant behaviors such as information sharing
and social loafing.
Political Tactics. Of the six political tactics, LM tests indicated that assertiveness,
ingratiation, and rationality had measurement problems and seemed to cross load with other
variables in the model. Therefore, in order to improve the model fit, the three were dropped from
the final exploratory model. Subsequent results revealed that POS was marginally related to
exchange and upward appeal, but was not related to coalition. A possible explanation for the
insignificant relationship between POS and coalition could be the political norms of the
organization. The choice of political tactics to achieve desired means is influenced by the
political norms of the organization (Allen & Porter, 1981). It is possible that coalition building is
not encouraged or seen as an acceptable norm in the company, perhaps because of the partly
unionized workforce.
96
In contrast, LMX was not related to any of the political tactics. These findings when
taken together with those from alternative model three, reveal that POS and not LMX is
significantly related to the second order factor structure of creativity-relevant behaviors created
by using three political tactics, coalition, exchange and upward appeal, as indicators. It seems
that employees reporting a high quality of exchange relationship with the organization are likely
to use indirect means such as the use of political tactics. A possible explanation for this finding
could be that creativity-relevant behaviors such as the use of political tactics may be seen as
extra-role behaviors that are supportive of organizational goals, but are also behaviors that go
above and beyond the requirements of the job. Past research has shown that POS and not LMX
facilitate extra role behaviors that are directed towards the organization (e.g., Shore & Wayne,
1993; Masterson et al., 2001). In other words, as a result of high levels of POS, employees may
be encouraged to go above and beyond the call of duty and utilize political tactics that are going
to ultimately benefit the organizational goals. However, despite the significant paths, it is
important to note that the variance explained for information sharing, social loafing, exchange
and upward appeal is quite low (see Table 10), suggesting a possibility of other relationships not
captured by this model.
Overall, these findings suggest that employees relationship with the supervisor may be
instrumental in facilitating creativity-relevant behaviors such as information sharing and social
loafing, that seem like in-role behaviors. In contrast, employees relationship with the
organization may play an important role in facilitating creativity-relevant behavior such as the
use of various political tactics that are supportive of organizational goals but go beyond the job
requirements.
97
Creativity-Relevant Behaviors Creativity. Finally, it was hypothesized that
information sharing, risk taking, social loafing and all of the six political tactics would be
significantly related to creativity. As mentioned in the previous section, three political tactics,
assertiveness, ingratiation, and rationality were dropped from the final exploratory model due to
measurement problems. It was found that both information sharing and social loafing were
significantly related to creativity, whereas risk taking was not related to creativity. This is
contradictory to expectations and inconsistent with much of the research on creativity, which
suggests that risk taking is positively related to creativity (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Zhou & George,
2001).
It is possible that risk taking is not necessary for being creative in this organization
because creativity in this organization is primarily achieved through process improvisation,
which relies on incremental improvement rather than on risky and radical ideas that may result in
expensive mistakes. If risk taking is not considered a creativity-enhancing behavior, employees
are less likely to engage in it. Furthermore, those employees who do take risks may not be
viewed as creative.
Of the three political tactics, only exchange was found to be marginally related to
creativity, whereas coalition and upward appeal were not related to creativity. It is possible that
the high inter-correlation among coalition, exchange and upward appeal could be suppressing
relationships between other political tactics and creativity. Moreover, it is also possible that the
use of exchange may facilitate creativity through various means such as feedback and additional
ideas and coalition building and upward appeal are not acceptable forms of influence tactics.
Therefore, employees who do use these tactics are not viewed as creative.
98
Finally, in order to better understand these findings, routine performance was included as
both a dependent variable and a control variable in the alternative model three. The primary
purpose for including routine performance as a dependent variable was to see if similar pattern of
results exists for both routine performance and creativity. The results showed a similar social
exchange effect existed for the routine performance as well. This finding was not surprising,
particularly because the company is an engineering firm where employees are expected to be
creative. More importantly, including routine performance in the model did not take away from
or dampen any of the relationships for creativity suggesting that the two are distinct from each
other. Also, the nonsignificant path from routine performance to creativity suggests that good
performance on routine tasks does not necessarily imply high levels of creativity.
Overall, these findings show that the employees who report high quality of exchange
relationships with their supervisors are likely to engage in creativity-relevant behaviors such as
increased information sharing and reduced social loafing, which in turn facilitates creativity. In
contrast, employees who report high quality exchange relationships with the organization are
likely to engage in creativity-relevant behaviors such as the use of political influence tactics,
although political tactics do not seem to impact creativity. It is possible, as has been suggested in
past research, that political tactics may be related to other outcomes (e.g., Pfeffer, 1981), and not
necessarily to creativity. Interestingly, high levels of organizational support directly affect
employees routine performance suggesting that the relational environment at the organizational
level may be important for routine performance and not necessarily for creativity.
Multi-Foci Effect. One final purpose of this study was to explore any differential effects
of the relational environment at the organizational and supervisory level on creativity. Based on
the findings from the structural equation models, it may be inferred that the organizational and
99
supervisory level environments differentially affect creativity and routine performance. The
results show that the relational environment at the organizational level is related to POS, and
creativity-relevant behaviors such as political behaviors but does not affect creativity.
Interestingly, POS is directly and marginally related to routine performance. In contrast, the
relational environment at the supervisory level affects LMX, which in turn affects creativity-
relevant behaviors such as information sharing and social loafing, and hence, creativity. In
addition, the relational environment at the supervisory level affects routine performance through
LMX and what seems like in-role creativity-relevant behaviors (i.e., information sharing and
social loafing).
These findings suggest that the relational environment at the organizational level plays a
more important role in influencing routine performance than creativity. In contrast, the relational
environment at the supervisory level appears to be important for both creativity and routine
performance. These findings are along the line of previous research which has demonstrated the
importance of leaders in influencing creativity (e.g., Gilson & Shalley, forthcoming). Overall,
these findings provide a basis for comparing and contrasting the effect of relational environment
at two different levels on two different outcomes, creativity and routine performance.
Limitations
One limitation of this study is that the data collected was cross-sectional (i.e., collected at
one point in time). This poses a concern for causality among relationships. Although structural
equation modeling allows for the simultaneous estimation of paths and uses the variance-
covariance matrix for estimating paths, causality may not be inferred from these results.
Furthermore, due to the possibility of alternative models fitting the data equally well, these
results do not preclude the possibility of an alternative model (e.g., Bagozzi & Baumgartner,
100
1994). However, the complexity of the models tested reduces the concern for reverse
relationships. Given that the model represents a network of relationships, it is unlikely that
reverse relationships should be involved.
Another limitation of this study is common method bias in certain portions of the model.
Even though an attempt was made to minimize the common method bias in this study by
collecting data from two sources, employees and supervisors, there is a possibility of common
method bias within the employee and supervisor portions of the model. The relationships among
justice, trust and the quality of exchange relationships, both at the organizational and supervisory
level were tested using employees data. In contrast, the relationships between behaviors and
performance variables (i.e., creativity and routine performance) were tested using the data
collected from supervisors.
Furthermore, less than perfect sample size for testing the model was another limitation of
this study. The rule of thumb for the structural equation modeling is 5:1 parameters to sample
size ratio. The final exploratory model required estimating 56 parameters, which required a
sample size of 280 (current sample size = 205), thereby violating the rule. However, since higher
degrees of freedom, which in this case was 97, require much lesser sample size (e.g., McCallum,
1986), it was decided to run the model. Moreover, EQS allowed all the models to converge
indicating no special problems with respect to the sample size. This allows for confidence in the
results despite lesser sample size. Finally, due to restricted sample size, parceled and single
indicator variables were used, and hence, the full power of structural equation modeling could be
utilized, though incorporating measurement error in the model allowed for pure relationships
to emerge.
101
Contributions of the Study
The findings of this study make several contributions both to the theory and research on
the influence of social environment on creativity. In addition, there are some practical lessons for
managers as well.
Contributions to Research
For long, researchers and practitioners alike have touted the importance of understanding
the effect of the social environment on creativity. Much of the research has focused narrowly,
perhaps purposefully, on understanding the impact of specific contextual elements on creativity.
In comparison to previous research, this study attempts to give definition or meaning to what has
remained a rather fuzzy social environment. This study identifies at least two social factors
(i.e., fairness and trust), that may constitute this fuzzy and perhaps less understood social
environment. Broadly speaking, this study models creativity as a two phase model wherein the
social environmental factors are shown as distant yet important predictors of exchange
relationships and creativity-relevant behaviors that are proximal and direct predictors of
creativity. In essence, this study shows at least one way in which fair and trusting environment
might affect creativity, and opens up the lines for future research to explore other ways in which
fair and trusting environment might affect creativity. Such a research may also result in
identification of new unexplored variables that might influence creativity.
Yet another contribution of this study is that it underscores the importance of
simultaneously studying the multi-foci effect of the relational environment on creativity.
Through this study, it was possible to gain a better and comprehensive understanding how the
social environment at two different levels (i.e., organizational and supervisory) influences
creativity through different variables or mechanisms. Specifically, this study extends the existing
102
literature on creativity, which until now focused primarily on employees relationship with the
supervisor (e.g., Graen & Cashman, 1975; Tierney et al., 1999), by including and examining the
impact of fairness and trust on employees social exchange relationships both at the
organizational and supervisory level and the subsequent impact on creativity. This, combined
with the fact that employees routine performance was also included as another dependent or
outcome variable allowed for comparing and contrasting of the effect of variables at two levels,
i.e., organizational and supervisory, on creativity and routine performance. Also, including
routine performance as a control and dependent variable, allowed parsing out any potential
confounding effects of routine performance on creativity. Thus, including the two levels in
combination with routine performance as another dependent variable provides a richer
understanding of how social exchange processes might influence employee creativity.
In addition to extending the literature on creativity, this study also contributes to the
literature on organizational justice. Past research has suggested but not fully tested
simultaneously the relationships between justice, trust and social exchange relationships at both
the organizational and supervisory level. This study highlights the importance of trust in shaping
employees social exchange relationships within organization. In addition, this study shows that
it is important to include both the source and type of fairness as the relationships may depend on
both. Simply put, it not only matters what type of fairness (i.e., DJ, PJ, IPJ, IFJ) but also who is
the source (i.e., organization versus supervisor) of fairness that influences employees social
exchange relationships.
Overall, this study brings together several previously studied relationships to explain a
broader phenomenon of social exchange process and its influence on important outcome
variables such as creativity and routine performance. While it is important to understand
103
individual specific relationships, it is equally important to understand how these relationships
may be integrated into a more coherent model within organizations. This study looks at
creativity as a result of social exchange processes rather than as a result of individual factors,
thereby consolidating some of the previous research on creativity as well as providing some new
findings.
Contributions to Practice
The results of this study have implications for managers in terms of understanding the
impact of the social environment, specifically the relational environment, on employee creativity.
It is not a new understanding that managers should be concerned about fair procedures, policies,
outcomes and treatment. This study shows that employees perceptions of fairness are not only
important for retaining employees or keeping employees committed, but also for creativity.
Managers should be concerned with fostering a fair and trusting environment because such an
environment will help employees build stronger social exchange relationships within the
organization, which could be important for nurturing creativity. Moreover, the measures required
to ensure fair and trusting environment are a cost effective means for organizations to facilitate
creativity. Simply put, managers should be aware that the relational environment of the company
is important.
Future Research
In order to achieve desired fit, several modification were made to the originally
hypothesized model in terms of both adding links that were not hypothesized earlier and
eliminating links that were hypothesized. These modifications were primarily data driven,
thereby increasing the possibility of capitalizing on chance (MacCallum, 1986). Therefore, it is
important that the final model should be replicated in future studies. In addition, there could be
104
several other areas for future research. For example, coworkers could be a third source of
relational environment as well as a target of social exchange relationships, which should be
included in future research. This is a particularly under-researched area.
Another area of research could focus on understanding how the use of political tactics
might affect creativity or other important organizational outcomes. Due to the poor measurement
model of the political tactics, this link could not be satisfactorily tested. Another related area of
future research could be to test the social exchange model in a team-based organization. In view
of increasing trend among organizations to be team-based, this could be an important area of
research. Finally, future studies could also include personality characteristics as moderators to
better understand the effect of social exchange on creativity.
Conclusion
Both practitioners and researchers alike are concerned with enhancing employee
creativity to develop and sustain competitive advantage. Past research has clearly demonstrated
the importance of social relationships in predicting important outcomes, and therefore, it is
important to understand how these factors might impact employee creativity.
This study examined the impact of relational factors such as fairness and trust on
employees social exchange relationships, and its subsequent impact on employee creativity. The
results of this study showed that the supervisors who are fair and can be trusted are likely to
build stronger relationships with their employees, and as a result, facilitate both creativity as well
as routine performance. In contrast, results showed that fair and trusting organizations are likely
to affect routine performance and not necessarily creativity. Overall, the results of this study
point towards the importance of relational environment and social exchange relationships in
affecting both creativity and routine performance.
105
REFERENCES
Adam, J.S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 2, 267-299. New York: Academic Press.
Allen, R.W., & Porter, L.W. 1983. Organizational influence processes. Glenview, Ill: Scott,
Foresman, and Company.
Amabile, T.M. 1996. Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., & Lazenby, J. 1996. Assessing the work environment for
creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1185.
Anderson, J., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating
unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (2), 186-193.
Anderson, N., & West, M.A. 1996. The team climate inventory: Development of the TCI and its
applications in teambuilding for innovativeness. European Journal of Work &
Organizational Psychology, 5, 53-67.
Ardnt, M. 2002. Whirlpool taps its entrepreneur. Business Week Online. McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P.S., Zhen, X.C. 2002. Trust as a mediator of the relationship between
organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23 (3), 267-286.
Bagozzi, R.P., & Baumgartner. 1994. The evaluation of structural equation models and
hypothesis testing. In R.P. Bagozzi (Ed.) Principles of Marketing Research, 386-422.
Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.
Bandura, A. 1969. Principles of Behavior Modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Barber, B. 1983. The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
106
Barron, F., & Harrington, D.M. 1981. Creativity, intelligence, & personality. Annual Review of
Psychology, 32, 439-476.
Barron, F. 1955. The disposition toward originality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
51, 478-485.
Becker, T.E. 1992. Foci and Bases of Commitment: Are they distinctions worth making?
Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232-45.
Bentler, P.M., & Chou, Chih-Ping. 1987. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological
Methods & Research, 16, 78-117.
Bies, R.J., & Moag, J.F. 1986. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R.J.
Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard, & M.H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in
Organizations, 1, 43-55. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bigley, G.A., & Pearce, J.L. 1998. Straining for shared meaning in organization science:
Problems of trust and distrust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 405-422.
Blau, P.M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Willey
Bollen, K.A., 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Burt, R. S., 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. Journal of Sociology, 110 (2), 349-399.
Byrne, B.M. 1995. Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Byrne, Z. 1999. How do procedural and interactional justice influence multiple levels of
organizational outcomes. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta: GA.
107
Calantone, R., & Garcia, R., Dralge, C. 2003. The effects of environmental turbulence on new
product development strategy planning. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20,
90- 104.
Cohen-Charash, Y., Spector, P.E. 2001. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 86 (2), 278-322.
Colquitt, J.A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a
measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-401.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C.A., & Chen, P.Y. 2002. Using social exchange theory to distinguish
procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organization Management, 27, 324-352.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z.S.. Bobocel, D.R., Rupp, D. E. 2001. Moral virtues, fairness heuristics,
social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 58, 169-209.
Cropnazano, R., Howes, J.C., Grandey, A.A., Toth, P. 1997. The relationships of organizational
politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 18, 159-180.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1988. Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R.
Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity, 325-339. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., & Pretz, J. 1998. Can the promise of reward increase creativity?
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74, 704-715.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, s., & Sowa, D. 1986. Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.
108
Fiest, G.J. 1999. The influence of personality on artists and scientific creativity. In R.J. Sternberg
(Ed.), Handbook of creativity,273-296. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Ford, C.M., & Gioia, D. A. 1995. Creative Action in Organizations: Ivory Tower Visions and
Real World Voices. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Gambetta, D. 1988. Trust: Making or Breaking Cooperative Relations. New York, NY:
Blackwell.
Gandz, J., Murray, V.V. 1980. The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Management
Journal, 23 (2), 237-252.
George, J.M. 1992. Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organization.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V., Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:
Correlates and constructs issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (6), 827-844.
Ghiselin, B., Rompel, R., & Taylor, C.W.A. 1964. A creative process check list: Its development
and validation. In C.W. Taylor (Ed.) Widening Horizons in Creativity. New York: Wiley.
Gouldner, A.W. 1960. A norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological
Review, 25, 161-178.
Graen, G, & Cashman, J. 1975. A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A
developmental approach. In J. Hunt & L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership Frontiers, 309-357.
Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Graen, G., & Scandura, T. 1987. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L.L.Cummings
& B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
109
Guilford, J.P. 1950. Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
Hayduk, L.A. 1987. Structural equation modeling with LISERAL: Essentials and advances.
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hoyle, R.H., Oanter, A.T., 1995. Writing about structural equation models. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.)
Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications, 158-176. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
James, K., & Clark, K. 1999. Justice, and positive and negative creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 12 (4), 311-320.
Kacmar, M.K., Witt, L.A., Zivnuska, A., Gully, S.M., 2003. The interactive effect of leader-
member exchange and communication frequency on performance ratings. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88 (4), 764-772.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1982. On the study of statistical intuitions. In D. Kahneman, P.
Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, 493-
508. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Katzenbach, J.R., & Smith, D.K. 1993. The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 71,
111-121.
King, N., & Anderson, N. 1995. Innovation and Change in Oorganizations. New York:
Routledge.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S.M., & Wilkinson, I. 1980. Intraorganizational influence tactics:
Explorations in getting ones way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-453.
Kirton, M.J. 1976. Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied
110
Kogan, N., & Wallach, M.A. 1964. Effects of physical separation of group members upon group
risk-taking. Human Relations, 20, 41-49.
Konovsky, M.A., & Pugh, S.D. 1994. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 656-669.
Konovsky, M.A., & Cropanzano, R. 1991. Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a
predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
76(5), 698-708.
Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J., & Bies, R.J. 1998. Trust and distrust: New relationships and
realities. Academy of Management Review, 23, 438-459.
Lewis, J.D., & Weigert, A. 1985. Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63, 967-985.
Liden, R.C., & Graen, G.B., 1980. Generalizibility of the vertical dyad linkage model of
leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465.
Lind, E.A. 2001. Fairness Heuristic Theory: Justice Judgments as Pivotal Cognitions in
Organizational Relations. In J.R. Greenberg and R. Cropanzano (Ed.) Advances in
Organizational Justice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lind, E.A. 1998. Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in
organizational relations . In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.) Advances in
Organizational Behavios. San Francisco: New Lexington.
Lind, E.A., & Tyler, E.R. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York:
Plenum Press.
Madison, D.L., Allen, R.W., Porter, L.W., Renewick, P.A., & Mayes, B.T. 1980. Organizational
politics: An exploration of managers perceptions. Human Relations, 33 (2), 79-102.
111
MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., & Sugawara, H.M. 1996. Power analysis and determination of
sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.
MacCallum, R.C., 1986. Specification searches in covariance structural modeling. Psychological
Bulletin, 100, 240-246.
MacKinnon, D.W. 1965. Personality and the realization of creative potential. American
Psychologist, 20, 273-281.
Malatesta, R.M., & Byrne, Z.M. 1997. The impact of formal and interactional procedures on
organizational outcomes. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M., & Taylor, M.S. 2000. Integrating justice and social
exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment of work relationship.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, D.F. 1995. An integrative model of trust. Academy of
Management Review, 20, 709-734.
McAllister, D.J. 1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 36-60.
Molm, L.D., Quist, T.M., & Wiseley, P.A. 1993. Reciprocal justice and strategies of exchange.
Social Forces, 72, 19-44.
Montuori, M., & Purser, R. 1999. Social Creativity, 1,Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Murphy, S.M., Wayne, S.J., Liden, R.C., & Erdogan, B. 2003. Understanding social loafing: The
role of justice perceptions and exchange relationships. Human Relations, 56 (1), 61-85.
Nunaly, J.C., Bernstein, I.H. 1994. Psychometric theory: Third edition. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
112
Oldham, G.R., & Cummings, A. 1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-635.
Parnes, S.J. 1964. Research on developing creative behavior. In C.W. Taylor (Ed.) Widening
Horizons in Creativity, New York: Wiley.
Paulus, P.B. 2000. Groups, teams and creativity: The creative potential of idea generating
groups. Applied Psychology, 49, 237-263.
Pelz, D.C., & Andrews, F.M. 1966. Scientists in Organizations: Productive Climates for
Research and Development. New York: Wiley.
Perry-Smith, J.E., & Shalley, C.E. 2003. The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic
social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28, 89-107.
Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. 2002. Perceived Organizational Support: A review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-715.
Robinson, S.L. 1996. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41, 574-600.
Rousseau, D.M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. 1995. The meso paradigm: A framework for the
integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 17, 71-115.
Rynes, S.L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A call for new
research directions. In M.D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology, 2nd ed., 1-46. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists' Press.
113
Rupp, D.E., & Cropanzano, R. 2002. The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in
predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925-947.
Schien, V.E., 1977. Individual power and political behaviors in organizations: An inadequately
explored reality. Academy of Management Review, 2: 64-73.
Schmitt, N., & Coyle, B.W. 1976. Applicant decisions in the employment interview. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 2, 184-912.
Schriesheim, C.A., Castro, S.L., & Cogliser, C.C., 1999. Leader-member exchange (LMX)
research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data analytic practices.
Leadership Quarterly, 10 (1), 63-106.
Schriesheim, C.A., & Hinkin, T.R., 1990. Influence tactics used by subordinates: A theoretical
and empirical analysis and refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 246-257.
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, 580-608.
Settoon R.P., Bennett, N., Liden, R.C. 1996. Social exchange in organizations: Perceived
organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of
applied psychology, 81, 219-227.
Shalley, C.E. 1995. Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity on
creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 483-204.
Shore, L.M., & Wayne, S.J. 1993. Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective
commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (5), 774-779.
114
Sitkin, S.B., & Pablo, A.L. 1992. Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy
of Management Review, 17, 9-30.
Stein, M.I. 1968. Creativity. In E.F. Borgatta & W.W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of Personality
Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Taggar, S. 2002. Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A
multi-level model. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 315-331.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S., & Graen, G. B. 1999. An examination of leadership and employee
creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591-607.
Tyler, T.R., & DeGoey, P. 1996. Trust in organizational authorities: The influence of motive
attributions on willingness to accept decisions. In R. Kramer and T.R. Tyler (Eds.) Trust
in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, 331-356. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Tyler, T.R., & Lind, E.A. 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. In M.Zanna (Eds.)
Advances in experimental social psychology, 25, 115-191. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H.A.M., & Allan, L.A. 1998. When do we need procedural fairness?
The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1449-
1458.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., & Liden, R.C. 1997. Perceived organizational support and leader-
member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40,
82-112.
115
Wayne, S.J., Tetrick, L.E., Shore, L.M., & Bommer, W.H. 2002. The role of fair treatment and
rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87, 590-599.
West, M.A. 2002. Ideas are ten a penny: Its team implementation not idea generation that
counts. Applied Psychology, 51, 411-424.
West, 2001. How to promote creativity in a team? People Management, 7: 46-49.
West, M.A., & Anderson, N.R. 1996. Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied
Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., & Griffin, R.W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational
creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293-322.
Zhou, J., & George, J.M. 2001. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the
expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682-697.
Zhou, J. 2003. When the presence of creative coworkers is related creativity: Role of supervisor
close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied
116
Appendix 1: Sample Email Message Seeking Employee Participation
To: All Engineers (all departments)
From: HR department
Re: Research study being conducted by Shalini Khazanchi
As part of her dissertation requirements, Shalini Khazanchi is conducting a study examining

organizational creativity within our company. Participation will involve completing a survey
designed to identify various factors that may influence creativity. The results may benefit our
organization by identifying factors that influence our overall creativity. It may also benefit
engineers by revealing those factors important to your experience in the organization. Thus, we
endorse this study, and encourage you to participate by completing the required survey.
However, your participation is completely voluntary, and we will not be informed as to whether
you choose to participate or not. We will only receive a final report of the results, aggregated to
the company level.
117
Appendix 2: Sample Consent Form
You are being asked to participate in a study that I am completing as part of my doctoral program requirements.
The study is being supervised by Professor Suzanne Masterson of the Management Department, College of
Business, University of Cincinnati. The following information summarizes the purpose of the study, how long it will
take to participate, what you are asked to do in the study, the risks/discomforts and benefits for being in the study,
your right to not be in the study or stop at any time, and who to call if you have any questions.
I am studying the impact of an organizations relational environment on employee performance. As a participant,

you will be asked to complete a survey which will take approximately 25 minutes. There will be an additional
supervisor survey, which will request your supervisor to provide information on your work-related behaviors.
I assure you that your name will not be shared in any way; all data are completely confidential and will be used only
for the purposes of data analysis. Your survey is identified only by an ID number assigned by the researcher, making
it impossible for anyone other than the researcher to establish your identity. Furthermore, you will return the
completed survey and signed consent forms in separate sealed drop-off boxes, accessible only to the researcher, kept
in your department. The information from the surveys will be used for the purposes described here and will not be
shared in any way with others. Your participation is voluntary and you may refuse to participate, or may discontinue
participation at any time, without penalty or loss.
There are no foreseeable discomfort or risks involved in participating in this study. Defer You will receive no direct
benefit from your participation in this study, but your participation will help researchers and managers better
understand how an organizations relational environment may impact employee performance.
If you would like additional information about the study or your rights as a participant before or after the study is
completed, please feel free to contact any of the following people.
(1) Shalini Khazanchi (2) Suzanne S. Masterson, Ph.D.

Doctoral Candidate Assistant Professor
Department of Management College of Business Department of Management College of Business
University of Cincinnati University of Cincinnati
Ph: (513) 556-7133 Ph. (513) 556- 7125
Email: guptash@email.uc.edu Email: masters@uc.edu.
(2) XYZ
Manager, HR
Sincerely,
Shalini Khazanchi
Doctoral Candidate
Department of Management College of Business
University of Cincinnati
(513) 556-7133
With my signature, I affirm that I am at least 18 years old and I have been offered a copy of this consent form to
keep.
Name and Signature of the participant ___________________________________________________.
118
Appendix 3: Employee Survey Cover Sheet
This study is a part of my dissertation research being conducted at the College of Business at the
University of Cincinnati. My research examines the impact of an organizations social
environment on employee creativity. This survey should take about 25-30 minutes to complete.
Please read the consent form provided with the survey. If you choose to participate in the study,
please return the completed survey and the signed consent form in their respective sealed-off
boxes, kept in your department.
Your answers to this questionnaire will be seen only by the researcher, and will be held
completely confidential. You have been assigned an ID number that appears on your survey.
The purpose of this ID is to protect your identity from anyone other than the researcher. Your
individual responses will never be shared with anyone else other than the researcher. Your
supervisor will be asked to provide information on your work-related behaviors but will not
know your ID number as it is assigned by the researcher and thus, will never be able to match
your responses with your names.
Your responses will be combined with those from all other participants and analyzed as a
complete dataset. Your name will never be matched with this data. By returning this completed
survey, you are giving me permission to collect information from your supervisor on your work-
related behaviors. Any reporting of study results will be based on this aggregated data, so that no
individual respondent can ever be identified. There are no known risks involved with
participating in this research project, and your participation is completely voluntary.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation with this project. If you have any comments about
the survey or project, feel free to write them at the end of the survey. Alternatively, feel free to
contact principal investigator, Shalini Khazanchi, Department of Management, College of
Business, University of Cincinnati, P.O.Box 210165, OH 45221-0165, ph. 513-556-7133 (US),
Ext. 5138 (India), Email: guptash@email.uc.edu.
119
Appendix 4: Supervisor Survey Coversheet
This study is a part of my dissertation research being conducted at the College of Business at the
University of Cincinnati. My research examines the impact of an organizations social
environment on employee performance. This survey should take about 25 minutes to complete.
Please read the consent form provided with the survey. Please return both the signed consent
form and completed survey in a sealed-off box, kept in the HR department. Please return the
completed survey form/s in 3 days.
Your answers to this questionnaire will be seen only by the researcher, and will be held
completely confidential. You have been assigned an ID number that appears on your survey.
The purpose of this ID is to protect your identity from anyone other than the researcher. Your
individual responses will never be shared with anyone else other than the researcher.
Furthermore, only the researcher will have access to the sealed-off box kept in the HR
department.
Your responses will be combined with those from all other participants and analyzed as a
complete dataset. Your name will never be matched with this data. Any reporting of study
results will be based on this aggregated data, so that no individual respondent can ever be
identified. There are no known risks involved with participating in this research project, and your
participation is completely voluntary.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation with this project. If you have any comments about
the survey or project, feel free to write them at the end of the survey. Alternatively, feel free to
contact principal investigator, Shalini Khazanchi, Department of Management, College of
Business, University of Cincinnati, P.O.Box 210165, OH 45221-0165, ph. 513-556-7133 (US),
4644 (India), Email: guptash@email.uc.edu.
120
Appendix 5: Employee Survey
Throughout this survey, organization refers to XYZ Fertilizers Ltd. Supervisor refers to the person to whom you directly report and
who appraises/evaluates your performance. For all items, please circle the number that best describes how you feel.
The following items refer to important outcomes such as annual bonus and number of days of vacations and that are decided
by your organization (i.e., officials much above the level of your supervisor, including top level officials). In answering the
questions below, please consider only those outcomes that are controlled by the organization.
to a to a
1. To what extent have your outcomes that are controlled by the small large
organization extent extent
1a. reflected the effort you have put into your work? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1b. been suitable for the work you have completed? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1c. reflected what you have contributed to the organization? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1d. seemed justified, given your performance? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The following items refer to the procedures that are used by the organization in deciding important outcomes that you
receive. For example, the organization may utilize performance appraisal system to make decisions regarding promotions,
pay raises etc. In answering the questions below, please consider only the procedures used by your organization to make
decisions.
to a to a
2. To what extent have your organizations procedures. small large
extent extent
2a. been applied consistently? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2b. been free of bias? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2c. been based on accurate information? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2d. upheld ethical and moral standards? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
to a to a
To what extent have you small large
extent extent
2e. been able to express your views and feeling during your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
121
organizations procedures?
2f. had influence over the outcome arrived at by your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
organizations procedures?
2g. been able to challenge or question the outcome arrived at by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
your organizations procedures?
The following items refer to the way procedures are carried out by the organization. In answering the questions below,
please think specifically about how the organization acts in carrying out its procedures.
3. With respect to carrying out procedures, to what extent has your to a to a
organization small large
extent extent
3a. treated you in a polite manner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3b. treated you with dignity? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3c. treated you with respect? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3d. refrained from improper remarks or comments? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3e. been candid in communications with you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3f. explained the procedures thoroughly? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3g. provided reasonable explanations about the procedures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
used?
3h. communicated details in a timely manner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3i. seemed to tailor communications to your specific needs? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
For each item below, please circle the number that best describes the extent to which you agree or disagree with each
statement regarding your work organization.
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
4a. I believe that this organization has high integrity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4b. I can expect this organization to treat me in predictable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
and consistent fashion.
4c. This organization is not always honest and truthful. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4d. In general, I believe this organizations motives and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
intentions are good.
4e. This organization is open and up front with me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4f. I am not sure if I fully trust this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4g. Even if I did the best job possible, the organization would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
122
fail to notice.
4h. Help is available from the organization when I have a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

problem.
4i. The organization really cares about my well being. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4j. The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
work.
4k. The organization cares about my opinion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4l. The organization shows very little concern for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4m. The organization strongly considers my goals and values. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4n. The organization is willing to extend itself in order to help 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
me perform my job to the best of my ability.
statement regarding your supervisor.
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
5a. I believe my supervisor has high integrity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5b. I can expect my supervisor to treat me in a predictable and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
consistent fashion.
5c. My supervisor is not always honest and truthful. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5d. In general, I believe my supervisors motives and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
intentions are good.
5e. My supervisor is open and up front with me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5f. I am not sure if I fully trust my supervisor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5g. My supervisor would be personally inclined to help me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
solve problems in my work.
5h. My working relationship with my supervisor is effective. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5i. I have enough confidence in my supervisor that I would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
defend and justify his/her decisions if he or she were not
present to do so.
5j. My supervisor considers my suggestions for change. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5k. My supervisor and I are suited to each other. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5l. My supervisor understands my problems and needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
123
5m. My supervisor recognizes my potential. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The following items refer to important outcomes you potentially receive that are decided by your supervisor. For example,
your supervisor may control outcomes such as merit based pay raises and other performance-related rewards. In answering the
questions below, please consider only those outcomes that are controlled by your supervisor.
to a to a
6. To what extent have your outcomes that are controlled by your small large
supervisor extent extent
6a. reflected the effort you have put into your work? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6b. been appropriate for the work you have completed? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6c. reflected what you have contributed to the organization? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6d. seemed justified, given your performance? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The following items refer to the procedures that are used the supervisor in deciding important outcomes that you receive.
For example, your supervisor may create procedures regarding managing work load, shift hours, etc. In answering the
questions below, please consider only the procedures used by your supervisor to make decisions.
7. With respect to deciding important outcomes, to what extent To a to a
have your supervisors procedures. small large
extent extent
7a. have been applied consistently? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7b. been free of bias? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7c. been based on accurate information? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7d. upheld ethical and moral standards? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To a to a
To what extent have you small large
extent extent
7e. been able to express your views and feeling about your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
supervisors procedures?
7f. had influence over the outcome arrived at by your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7g. been able to appeal the outcome arrived at by your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
124
The following items refer to the way procedures are carried out by your supervisor. In answering the questions below,
please think specifically about how your supervisor acts while carrying out its procedures.
to a to a
8. To what extent has your supervisor small large
extent extent
8a. treated you in a polite manner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8b. treated you with dignity? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8c. treated you with respect? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8d. refrained from improper remarks or comments? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8e. been candid in his/her communications with you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8f. explained the procedures thoroughly? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8g. provided reasonable explanations about the procedures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
used?
8h. communicated details in a timely manner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8i. seemed to tailor his/her communications to your specific 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
needs?
For each of the item below, please circle the number that best describes the extent to which you agree or disagree with the
following statements.
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
9a. I prefer to depend on myself than others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9b. I rely on myself most of the time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9c. I rarely rely on others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9d. I often do my own thing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9e. My personal identity, independent of others, is very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
important to me.
9f. It is important that I do my job better than others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9g. Winning is everything. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9h. Competition is the law of nature. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9i. When another person does better than I do, I get tense. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9j. If a coworker gets a prize, I would feel proud. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9k. The well being of my coworkers is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9l. To me pleasure is spending time with others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
125
9m. I feel good when I cooperate with others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9n. Parents and children must stay together as much as 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
possible.
9o. Family members should stick together, no matter what 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
sacrifices are required.
9p. It is important to me that I respect the decisions made by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
my group.
9q. Employees should not disagree with management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
decisions.
9r. Managers should seldom ask for the opinions of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
employees.
9s. It is frequently necessary for managers to use power and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
authority when dealing with subordinates.
9t. Employees in a company should pay high respect to their 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
direct supervisor.
9u. Managers should try to look less powerful than they are. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9v. Subordinates should consider supervisors as being of a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
different kind.
9w. I am confident that justice always prevails over injustice. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9x. I firmly believe that injustices in all areas of life (e.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
politics, family, professional.) are the exception rather than
the rule.
9y. I think that people try to be fair when making important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
decisions.
9z. I am convinced that people will be compensated for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
injustices.
10a. I believe that, by and large, people get what they fairly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
deserve.
10b. I basically believe the world is a just (fair) place. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10c. A lot of people suffer an unjust (unfair) fate. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10d. I feel that important decisions are often unfair. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10e. I basically believe that the world is an unjust (unfair) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
place.
126
10f. I feel that people wont be compensated for injustices 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
too often.
For each of the following pairs of statements, please assign a total of ten (10) between the two options to express the
strength of your preference. Note: the total points assigned to the options for any one questions must total 10 points.
11. In any organization, (and not just XYZ Fertilizers Ltd.) I

might work for
__6___ be liked by the supervisor.
Example: It would be more important for my to = 10 __3___ be liked by the organization.
..
______ get from the organization.
11a. It would be more important for me to = 10 ______ give to the organization.
______ help others. .
11b. It would be more important for me to = 10 ______ watch out for my own good.
______ what I receive from the organization.
11c. I would be more concerned about. = 10 ______ what I contribute to the organization.
______ benefit the organization.

11d. The hard work I would do should = 10 ______ benefit me.
statement regarding your own behaviors.
12. While engaging in activities that are likely to enhance my Strongly Strongly
performance (such as requesting information helpful to myself disagree agree
and/or gathering support for my ideas), I
12a. am demanding and set deadlines. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12b. express my anger verbally. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12c. have a showdown in which I confront him/her face to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
face.
12d. make the other person feel good about me before 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
127
making my request.
12e. act very humbly to the person while making my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
request.
12f. act in a friendly manner prior to asking for what I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
want.
12g. present the person with information in support of my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

point of view.
12h. explain the reasons for my request. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12j. use logic to convince the person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12k. obtain the support of coworkers to back up my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
request.
12m. obtain the support of my subordinates to back up my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
request.
12n. mobilize other people in the organization to help me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
influence the person.
12o. offer an exchange (e.g., if you do this for me, I will do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
something for you).
12p. remind the person of past favors I did for them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12q. offer to make a personal sacrifice if the person does 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
what I want (e.g., work late, work harder, do his/her share of
work.)
12r. make a formal appeal to higher levels to back up my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
request.
12s. obtain the informal support of higher ups. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12t. rely on the chain of command (e.g., on people higher 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
up in the organization who have power over the person).
128
statement regarding your own behaviors.
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
13a. I share work related information with others rather than 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
keeping it to myself.
13b. I keep others informed about work-related issues. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13c. I make a real attempt to share information with others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13d. I share information which I think might be useful to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
others.
13e. I consider failure of some ideas as being normal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13f. I offer ideas knowing that some will fail. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13g. I suggest drastically new ways to looking at the problem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
even when I am unsure of the outcome.
13h.I offer ideas which, if they fail, might affect my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
reputation.
13i. I defer (put-off) responsibility of actively suggesting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
new ideas.
13j. I put forth limited effort in brainstorming sessions. 1 2 3 4 5 6
13k. I avoid offering new ideas and suggestions, knowing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that others will.
13l. I spend limited time solving problems, knowing that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
others will as they require.
For each item below, please circle the number that best describes your performance.
14. In order to bring down the cost of operations, I. To a To a
small great
extent extent
14a. seek and accept new challenges. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14b. create new opportunities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14c. offer imaginative ideas and solutions to problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14d. step outside the traditional boundaries and constraints. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
129
15. In order to improve the quality of products and services, I
.
15a. seek and accept new challenges. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15b. create new opportunities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15c. offer imaginative ideas and solutions to problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15d. step outside the traditional boundaries and constraints. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. In terms of planning and paying attention to detail regarding

a days routine tasks, I..
16a. am able to lay down a plan of action for the days routine 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
activities.
16b. am able to pay attention to details that affect quality of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
days routine work.
16c. am able to perform the days routine tasks well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
For the items below, please indicate your agreement with each statement.
To a To a
17. In my organization small great
extent extent
17a. job performance is directly linked to annual salary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
increases.
17b. job performance is directly linked to promotion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
opportunities.
17c. high job performance is recognized. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17d. high job performance is rewarded. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
130
Please provide the following information about yourself, your supervisor and Indo-Gulf Fertilizers Ltd. This
information will not be used to identify you, but rather to provide contextual information to help us
understand the studys results.
Age ________years
Gender (check one) ________Male _______Female

Level of Education (check one)
________Bachelors Degree _______Masters Degree
________ Other; please specify: _______________________
How many positions have you held in this organization? _____________________
What is your current title? _____________________

How long have you held this title? _____________________ years
How long have you worked with this organization? _____________________ years
Based on organizational hierarchy, which best describes your position?

_______ Senior or upper-level management
_______ Middle-level management
_______ Lower management
Which best describes your overall performance in the organization?

_______ Excellent
_______ Good
_______ Satisfactory
_______ Unsatisfactory
_______ Poor
How long have you worked under your current supervisor? _____________________
Which best describes you current job?

_______ High level of complexity _______ High level of difficulty
_______ Medium level of complexity _______ Medium level of difficulty
_______ Low level of complexity _______ Low level of difficulty
131
Please respond to these questions using the following scale.
1 2 3 4 5
Which face comes closest to expressing how you feel about your supervisor right 1 2 3 4 5
now?
Which face comes closest to expressing how you feel about your organization right 1 2 3 4 5
now?
Which face comes closest to expressing how you feel about your job right now? 1 2 3 4 5
Thank you for your time and participation!
132
Appendix 6: Supervisor Survey
Please use a scale of 1 to 7 with one being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree to evaluate employee
performance. Employee names are written in boxes at the top of each column. For each item below, please write
the number that best describes the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement regarding the
employees behaviors. Note: Please evaluate employee behavior with others in the company and not just with
you.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly

Disagree disagree nor agree agree agree
Employees name
To evaluate employees behaviors, please use the columns
corresponding to that employees name.
Ravi Gupta
1. While engaging in activities that are likely to enhance
Example,
his/her performance (such as requesting information helpful
to himself/herself and/or gathering support for his/her ideas),
this employee...
1a. tries such things as demands, the setting of deadlines, 7

and the expression of strong emotions.
1b. expresses anger verbally. 5
1c. has a showdown in which he/she confronts others face 4

to face.
1d. makes the other person feel good about himself/herself 3

before making his/her request.
133
1e. .acts very humbly to the person while making the 4
request.
1f. .acts in a friendly manner prior to asking for what 2

he/she wants
1g. presents the person with information in support of 1

his/her point of view.
1h. explains the reasons for his/her request. 5
1j. uses logic to convince the person. 7
1k. obtains the support of coworkers to back up his/her 2

request.
1m. obtains the support of his/her subordinates to back up 5

his/her request.
134
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Employees name
To evaluate employees behaviors, please use the
columns corresponding to that employees name.
Ravi Gupta
1. While engaging in activities that are likely to enhance
Example,
his/her performance (such as requesting information helpful
to himself/herself and/or gathering support for his/her ideas),
this employee...
1n. mobilizes other people in the organization to help 5

himself/herself in influencing the person.
1o. offers an exchange (e.g., if you do this for me, I will 4

do something for you.)
1p. reminds the person of past favors he/she did for them. 3
1q. offers to make a personal sacrifice if the person does 7

what he/she want (e.g., work late, work harder, do his/her
share of work etc.)
1r. makes a formal appeal to higher levels to back up 5

his/her request.
1s. obtains the informal support of higher ups. 6
135
1t. relies on the chain of command (e.g., on people higher 6
up in the organization who have power over the person).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Employees name
To evaluate employees behaviors, please use the columns
Ravi Gupta
corresponding to that employees name.
Example,
2. The extent to which you agree or disagree that this
employee...
2a. suggests radically new ways to looking at the problem 7

even when he/she is unsure of the outcome.
2b. offers ideas which if they fail might affect his/her 6

reputation.
2c. offers ideas knowing that some will fail. 5
2d. considers the failure of some ideas as being normal. 5
2e. shares work-related information with others rather than 7

keeping it to himself/herself.
136
2f. keeps others informed about work-related issues. 3
2g. makes a real attempt to share information with others. 4
2h. shares information which he/she thinks might be useful 5

to others.
2i. puts-off the responsibility of actively suggesting new 7

ideas.
2j. puts forth limited in brainstorming sessions. 1
2k. avoids offering new ideas and suggestions, knowing that 2

others will.
2l. spends limited time solving problems knowing that 4

others will as they require.
137
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Employees name
Please use the columns corresponding to that employees
name to respond to the following questions.
Ravi Gupta
Example,
Please write the number that best describes the extent to
which you agree or disagree with each statement regarding
these employees.
3a. He/she would be personally inclined to help me solve 1

problems in my work.
3b. My working relationship with him/her is effective. 3
3c. I have enough confidence in him/her that I would defend

and justify his/her decisions if he or she were not present to 4
do so.
3d. He/she considers my suggestions for change. 5
3e. He/she and I are suited to each other. 2
3f. He/she understands my problems and needs. 7
138
3g. He/she recognizes my potential. 3
3h. I am confident in his/her ability to be creative. 5
3i. I feel that his/her performance is a reflection of my 6

guidance.
3j. I like him/her better than others. 2
3k. I feel his/her performance is likely to positively influence

your departments performance ratings. 4
3l. In reality, he/she deserves lower performance ratings than

given.
3m. If his/her performance ratings are poor then it will

negatively affect my reputation amongst other employees.
139
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Employees name
The following items ask you to evaluate your employees
Ravi Gupta
performance along three dimensions. Please write the
Example,
number that best describes the employees performance
in the columns corresponding to that employees name.
4. In order to bring down the cost of operations, to what

extent does this employee .
4a. seeks and accepts new challenges.
1
4b. creates new opportunities.
2
4c. offers imaginative ideas and solutions to problems.
5
4d. steps outside the traditional boundaries and constraints.
7
5. In order to improve the quality of products and services,
to what extent does this employee .
5a. seeks and accepts new challenges.
3
5b. creates new opportunities.
7
5c. offers imaginative ideas and solutions to problems.
4
5d. steps outside the traditional boundaries and constraints.
5
140
6. In terms of planning and paying attention to detail to
days routine work, to what extent does this employee .
6a. is able to lay down a plan of action for the days routine
activities. 4
6b. is able to pay attention to details that affect the quality of
the days routine work. 6
6c. is able to perform a days routine tasks well.
6
Please provide the following information about yourself, your employees, and Indo-Gulf Fertilizers Ltd. This
information will not be used to identify you, but rather to provide contextual information to help us
understand the studys results.
Age ________years
Gender (check one) ________Male _______Female
How many positions have you held in this organization? _____________________
How long have you worked with this organization? _____________________ years
Based on organizational hierarchy, which best describes your position?

_______ Senior or upper-level management
_______ Middle-level management
_______ Lower management
141
Which best describes your overall performance in the organization?
_______ Excellent
_______ Good
_______ Unsatisfactory
_______ Poor
Which best describes the performance appraisal system of the organization?
_______ Very effective
_______ Effective
_______ Not Effective
_______ Useless
How long have you worked with each of the following employees?
1. Ravi Gupta ___5__ years __6___months
______ years ______months
Thank you for your time and participation!
142

A Social Exchange Model of Creativity

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Social Exchange Model of Creativity

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

7th April, 2005

This work and its defense approved by:

A Dissertation submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the

Professor Suzanne S. Masterson, Chair

perceived organizational support, and leader member exchange. Supervisors provided

information on employees creativity-relevant behaviors (information sharing, risk taking, social

loafing, and political tactics), and creativity.

to organizational trust, which in turn was significantly related to perceived organizational

loafing, both of which were significantly related to creativity.

implications for both research and practice.

dedicate this dissertation to them.

teacher and a scholar.

To Sudhir, my love, for being there.

willingness to help me that made data collection possible.

members: Suzanne Masterson, Ann Welsh and David Lundgren.

List of Tables. ...............................................................................................iv

Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose of Study ................................................................. 1

Appendix 1: Sample Email Message Seeking Employee Participation.................................117

Appendix 2: Sample Consent Form ......................................................................................118

Appendix 3: Employee Survey Coversheet ..........................................................................119

Appendix 4: Supervisor Survey Coversheet .........................................................................120

Appendix 5: Employee Survey. .................................................................................121

Appendix 6: Supervisory Survey ..................................................................................133

Table 1: Employee Survey Measures ..................................41

Table 2: Supervisor Survey Measures .............45

Table 3: Parcels of Variables Used in CFA of Employee Data ..................................57

Table 4: Variables Created for Structural Modeling (Employee Survey) ...................60

Table 6: Summary of CFA Model Results for Political Behaviors ............................63

Table 7: Variables Created for Structural Modeling (Supervisor Survey) .................64

Table 8: Correlation Matrix .. ..................................................................................66

Table 9: Fixed Values in Structural Models ...............................................................68

Table 10: Summary of Exploratory SEM Results .........................................................76

Table 11: Comparison of Standardized Estimates Between Hypothesized and Final

Table 12: Explained Variance in Endogenous Factors in the Final Exploratory

Figure 1: Generic Social Exchange Model of Creativity ............................................. 9

Figure 2: Full Social Exchange Model of Creativity .................................................... 17

Figure 3: CFA Results on Organizational Justice ........................................................53

Figure 4: CFA Results on Supervisory Justice .............................................................54

Figure 5: CFA Results on Organizational and Supervisory Trust ................................55

Figure 6: CFA Results on POS and LMX ....................................................................56

Figure 7: CFA Results on Organizational Level Variables ..........................................58

Figure 8: CFA Results on Supervisory Level Variables ..............................................59

Figure 10: CFA Results on Supervisors Data (Political behaviors) ..............................65

Figure 11: Hypothesized Social Exchange Model Results .............................................70

Figure 12: Final Exploratory Model ...............................................................................75

Figure 13: Alternative Model 1 .......................................................................................84

Figure 14: Alternative Model 2 .......................................................................................85

Figure 15: Alternative Model 3 .......................................................................................86

1996) and evaluative context (Shalley, 1995).

test a social exchange model of creativity.

Social Exchange Model of Creativity: An Overview

influence employees exchange relationships in organizations, and ultimately, affect creativity.

Once established, employees quality of exchange relationships both with the

fostering the appropriate employee behaviors.

studied. This dissertation attempts to do so by addressing several questions: (1) do relational

relational factors on employee creativity.

To answer these questions, I develop a multi-foci social exchange model of creativity.

More specifically, I propose that employees perceptions of organizational and supervisory

creativity by fostering appropriate relational environment both at the organizational and

reminder of the dissertation.

whether the subject of investigation should be the person, process or product.

heuristic rather than algorithmic (Amabile, 1996; p.35).

considered creative. Thus, the product-based definition of creativity is adopted in this