Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Managerial creativity : the development and validation of a typology and predictive model Scratchley, Linda Sharon 1998

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1998-272419.pdf [ 16.13MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0088754.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0088754-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0088754-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0088754-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0088754-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0088754-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0088754-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0088754-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0088754.ris

Full Text

M A N A G E R I A L CREATIVITY: T H E D E V E L O P M E N T A N D VALIDATION OF A T Y P O L O G Y A N D PREDICTIVE M O D E L  •  .  '  .  by  ;  .  '•• •;  •  Linda Sharon Scratchley :  B.R.E. University of British Columbia, 1986 M.A. University of British Columbia, 1990  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL F U L F I L L M E N T OF T H E REQUIREMENTS . FOR T H E D E G R E E OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY •'  in  • •  T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES Department, of Psychology  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  T H E UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A February 1998 © Linda Sharon Scratchley, 1998  \  In  presenting  degree  at  this  the  thesis  in  partial  fulfilment  University  of  British  Columbia,  freely available for copying  of  department publication  this or of  reference  thesis by  this  for  his  and study. scholarly  or  thesis  for  her  financial  T^VCMOLOSy  The University of British Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  -/k/ikfiJL  Columbia  2L  }  I further  purposes  gain  the  requirements  I agree  shall  that  agree  may  representatives.  permission.  Department of  of  It not  be is  that  the  Library  permission  granted  by  understood be  for  allowed  an  advanced  shall for  the that  without  make  it  extensive  head  of  my  copying  or  my  written  Managerial Creativity ii  ABSTRACT A n individual-differences model of managerial creativity was developed.  Based on a  review of the creativity literature, four traits and abilities were identified as having relevance for creativity in managers: divergent thinking, evaluative thinking, work motivation, and openness to change, risk and ambiguity. The model was constructed by specifying behavioural descriptions of the creative management types that were predicted to arise from various combinations of high and low standing on these four traits and abilities. The initial model was presented to groups of managers i n order to get their input and feedback. approval of practicing managers,  M o v i n g forward with a model that met the  a concurrent validity study was designed.  Tests  and  questionnaires designed to measure Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, W o r k Motivation, and Openness to Change, Risk and Ambiguity were administered to 223 incumbent managers, and criterion ratings of on-the-job creative behaviour were provided by the supervisors of these participating managers. Results of the research indicated that the traits and abilities included in the Creative Management M o d e l were, indeed, important to managerial creativity. consulted about  the model fully  endorsed  the importance  Managers who were  of these traits  and abilities.  Furthermore, two of the traits and abilities, Divergent Thinking and Openness to Change, Risk and Ambiguity, demonstrated management behaviour.  solid validity in predicting prototypical aspects of creative  In combination, these two variables provided a level of validity of  sufficient magnitude (in the high .40's) to provide substantial utility to organizations seeking to increase the creativity of their management ranks by using this predictor combination for personnel-selection purposes. Despite the importance of the traits and abilities specified in the Creative Management M o d e l , the empirical linkages between these individual-difference factors and the behavioural descriptions of the creative management types provided in the Creative Management M o d e l were not strong.  These weak linkages are largely attributed to inaccuracy i n the behavioural  Managerial Creativity iii  descriptions.  Psychometric  weaknesses  in  some  of  the  variables  also  contributed.  Recommendations are made for revising the Creative Management M o d e l and some of its concomitant measures.  The implications of the research findings for management selection and  creativity training are also discussed.  Managerial Creativity iv  T A B L E O F  C O N T E N T S  Contents  Page  ABSTRACT  ii  LIST OF T A B L E S . .  ix  LIST OF FIGURES  xii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  xiii  C H A P T E R 1: I N T R O D U C T I O N Overview  1 :  Objectives of the Present Research C H A P T E R 2: L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W  2 4 6  The Importance of Creativity in Management  6  Definitions of Creativity, Innovation, and Creative Management  7  Research on Creativity  9  Person  10  Cognitive Ability  10  Cognitive Characteristics  10  Cognitive Explanations  11  Divergent Thinking Explanations Validity  12 13  Concurrent Validity  14  Predictive Validity  16  Associative Explanations of Creativity Cognitive Models Personality  19 20 20  Personality Characteristics  20  Personality Theories  25  Adaption-Innovation Theory  25  Concurrent Validity  29  A Related Model  29  Openness to Experience and Creativity Concurrent Validity  30 30  Motivation  32  Three-Dimensional Models of Creativity  33  Evidence for the Interactive Effects of Abilities and Traits in Creativity  35  Managerial Creativity v  T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S  (CONT'D)  Contents  Page  C H A P T E R 2: L I T E R A T U R E REVIEW (CONT'D) The Issue of Domain Specificity  36  The Creative Manager  37  Process  40  Problem Exploration  40  Idea Generation  42  Judgment  43  Product  44  Two Perspectives on Creativity  45  Gaps in the Existing Literature  47  Purpose of the Present Study  48  C H A P T E R 3: PROPOSED RATIONAL M O D E L OF M A N A G E R I A L CREATIVITY  49  Definitions of the Components Included in the Creative Management Model  50  Overview of the Creative Management Model  50  Rationale for the Components Included in the Model  55  Assumptions of the Creative Management Model  57  CHAPTER 4: C O N S E N S U A L VALIDITY OF T H E C R E A T I V E M A N A G E M E N T M O D E L . 5 9 Study 1: The Creative Management Model Method  59 59  Participants  59  Procedure  59  Results, Study 2: The Creative Management Types Method  61 67 67  Participants  67  Procedure  67  Results Study 3: Retranslation Method  67 74 74  Participants  74  Procedure  74  Results  74  Managerial Creativity vi  T A B L E  O F C O N T E N T S  (CONT'D)  Contents  Page  C H A P T E R 4: C O N S E N S U A L VALIDITY OF T H E C R E A T I V E M A N A G E M E N T M O D E L (CONT'D) Study 4: Managers' Conceptions of Creativity  77  Method  77  Participants  77  Procedure  77  Results  •  79  C H A P T E R 5: EMPIRICAL VALIDITY OF T H E C R E A T I V E M A N A G E M E N T M O D E L Study 5: Predicting Creativity in Managers  82 82  Method  82  Participants and Settings  82  Procedure  83  Assessment Battery Measures: Choices and Development  83  Divergent Thinking  83  Work Motivation and Openness  86  Evaluative Thinking  92  General Intelligence  97  Adaption-Innovation  98  Order of Administration  98  Criterion Performance Measures  98  Specific Creativity Criteria General Creativity Criterion  99 :  100  General Management Performance Criterion  101  Work Performance Questionnaire  101  Data Analysis  101  Scoring of Completed Exercises  101  Deletion of Cases  102  Treatment of Industry Cohorts in the Sample  102  Treatment of Gender Groups in the Sample  103  Reliability Estimation for Predictor and Criterion Scores  103  Intercorrelations Among the Predictor Measures  104  Estimation of Criterion-Related Validity  104  Managerial Creativity vii  T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S  (CONT'D)  C H A P T E R 5: EMPIRICAL VALIDITY OF T H E C R E A T I V E M A N A G E M E N T M O D E L (CONT'D) Corrections to Validity Estimates  105  Testing the Creative Management Model  106  Results  110  Reliability of the Predictor and Criterion Scores  110  Intercorrelations Among the Predictor Measures  114  Intercorrelations Among the Criterion Measures  118  Criterion-Related Validity  120  Bivariate Predictor-Criterion Correlations  120  Multiple Regression Analyses  125  Effects of Controlling for Certain Variables—Part Correlations  131  Additional Analyses With General Intelligence  137  Testing the Creative Management Model  147  Comparative Analyses  147  Hierarchical Regression Analyses  149  Classification Hit Rate  160  CHAPTER 6: G E N E R A L DISCUSSION  162  Consensual Validity of the Creative Management Model  162  Empirical Validity of the Creative Management Model  165  Predictive Validity  173  The Openness Scale Versus the KAI  173  Divergent Thinking Versus IQ  174  The Contribution of IQ  175  The Relationship Between Divergent Thinking and Openness  176  Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness and Work Motivation  178  Divergent Thinking and Openness in Aggregation  179  Prediction of General Management Performance  179  CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS A N D IMPLICATIONS  181  The Creative Management Model  181  Implications for Management Selection  184  Conceptual Implications  185  Managerial Creativity viii  T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S  (CONT'D)  Contents  Page  C H A P T E R 7: CONCLUSIONS A N D IMPLICATIONS (CONT'D) Implications for Management Training  186  REFERENCES  192  APPENDICES  209  Appendix A:  Hand-Outs Used in the First Part of Study 1  Appendix B:  Descriptions of the Models of Managerial Creativity Developed by  210  Participants in Study 1  214  Appendix C:  Hand-Outs Used in the Second Part of Study 1  217  Appendix D:  Questionnaire Used to Assess Participants' Reactions to the Creative Management Models in Study 1  225  Appendix E:  Summary Questionnaire Used in Study 1  230  Appendix F:  Behavioural Description Booklet Used in Study 2  233  Appendix G: Behavioural Description Retranslation Booklet Used in Study 3  249  Appendix H: Behavioural Generation Booklet Used in Study 4  265  Appendix I:  Behavioural Determinants Questionnaire Used in Study 4  275  Appendix J:  Participant Feedback Report for Study 5  288  Appendix K: Innovative and Divergent Elaboration Aptitude (I.D.E.A.) Battery:  Appendix L:  Form A  302  Item Content of the Openness Scale  318  Appendix M : Item Content of the Work Motivation Scale  320  Appendix N:  322  CRAM  Appendix O: Evaluative Thinking Battery Appendix P:  330  Critical-Incident Generation Booklet for the Specific Creativity Criteria  352  Appendix Q:  Retranslation Questionnaire for the Specific Creativity Criteria  363  Appendix R:  Item Content of the Criterion Scales  374  Appendix S:  Work Performance Questionnaire  380  Managerial Creativity ix  LIST O F  T A B L E S  Table  Page  Table 1:  Definitions of Creativity and Innovation  8  Table 2:  Personality Characteristics Attributed to Creatives  21  Table 3  Characteristics of Adaptors and Innovators  26  Table 4:  Percentage of Study 1 Participants W h o Felt That the Creative Management Types Specified in the Third M o d e l of Managerial Creativity Made Sense and Represented Real Managers  Table 5:  Percentage of Study 1 Participants Suggesting Additional Creative Management Factors  Table 6:  65  Percentage of Study 2 Participants Describing the Expected Behaviours for Each C e l l of the Creative Management M o d e l  Table 7:  63  68  Retranslation Results: Percentage of Study 3 Participants Identifying the Expected Trait Configuration and Percentage of Study 3 Participants Identifying a Real Manager for Each Creative Management Type  75  Table 8:  Significance of Various Individual-Difference Factors for Creative Behaviour  80  Table 9:  Reliability Results: Internal Consistency, Test-Retest Stability, Alternate Forms Reliability, and Inter-Rater Reliability for the Divergent Thinking Composite  87  Table 10: Classification of the Creative Management Types Based Both on Combinations of Predictor Variables and on Combinations of Criterion Variables  108  Table 11: Reliability Results: Internal Consistency Estimates for the Predictor Measures  Ill  Table 12: Reliability Results: Internal Consistency (Coefficient Alpha) Estimates for the Criterion Measures  113  Table 13: Intercorrelations Among the Predictor Scores (n = 221)  115  Table 14: Intercorrelations A m o n g the Criterion Scores (n = 212)  119  Table 15: Bivariate Predictor-Criterion Correlations (n = 212; Part Correlations with Effects of Management Experience Removed F r o m the Criteria are Given i n Parentheses)  121  Managerial Creativity x  LIST O F T A B L E S  Table  Page  Table 16: Criterion-Related Validity Coefficients (Bivariate Predictor-Criterion Correlations) of the Predictor Measures for the Six Criteria (n = 212; True Validities in Parentheses; Fully-Disattenuated Validities in Square Brackets)  122  Table 17: Bivariate Correlations and Regression Coefficients for Predicting Global Change from Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness and W o r k Motivation (n = 212)  126  Table 18: Bivariate Correlations and Regression Coefficients for Predicting Incremental Change from Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness and W o r k Motivation (n = 212)  127  Table 19: Bivariate Correlations and Regression Coefficients for Predicting Supporting Change from Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness and W o r k Motivation (n = 212)  128  Table 20: Bivariate Correlations and Regression Coefficients for Predicting Assessing Feasibility from Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness and W o r k Motivation (« = 212)  129  Table 21: Bivariate Correlations and Regression Coefficients for Predicting General Creativity from Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness and W o r k Motivation (n = 212)  130  Table 22: Bivariate Correlations and Regression Coefficients for Predicting Global Change from Divergent Thinking and Openness (n = 212)  132  Table 23: Bivariate Correlations and Regression Coefficients for Predicting General Creativity from Divergent Thinking and Openness (n = 212)  133  Table 24: Zero-Order and Semi-Partial Predictor-Criterion Correlations  136  Table 25: Hierarchical Regression of Global Change on Divergent Thinking and I Q  138  Table 26: Hierarchical Regression of General Creativity on Divergent Thinking and IQ  139  Table 27: Hierarchical Regression of General Creativity on Divergent Thinking, IQ, and W o r k Motivation  142  Managerial Creativity xi  LIST O F T A B L E S  Table  Page  Table 28: Hierarchical Regression of Global Change on Divergent Thinking, IQ, and Work Motivation  143  Table 29: Hierarchical Regression of Global Change on Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, IQ, Openness and Work Motivation  145  Table 30: Hierarchical Regression of General Creativity on Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, IQ, Openness and Work Motivation  146  Table 31: Hierarchical Regression of Global Change on the Predictor Variables Included in the Creative Management Model  151  Table 32: Hierarchical Regression of Incremental Change on the Predictor Variables Included in the Creative Management Model  152  Table 33: Hierarchical Regression of Supporting Change on the Predictor Variables Included in the Creative Management Model  153  Table 34: Hierarchical Regression of Assessing Feasibility on the Predictor Variables Included in the Creative Management Model  154  Table 35: Hierarchical Regression, at Two Levels of Work Motivation, of the Global Change Criterion on the Predictor Variables Included in the Creative Management Model  155  Table 36: Hierarchical Regression, at Two Levels of Work Motivation, of the Incremental Change Criterion on the Predictor Variables Included in the Creative Management Model  156  Table 37: Hierarchical Regression, at Two Levels of Work Motivation, of the Supporting Change Criterion on the Predictor Variables Included in the Creative Management Model  157  Table 38: Hierarchical Regression, at Two Levels of Work Motivation, of the Assessing Feasibility Criterion on the Predictor Variables Included in the Creative Management Model  158  Table 39: Participants Cross-Classified Into Creative Management Types According to Predictor Variables and According to Criterion Variables (n=212)  161  Managerial Creativity xii  LIST O F FIGURES  Figure  Page  Figure 1: Creative Management Orientations Described by the Creative Management Model  51  Managerial Creativity xiii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT A number of people were of assistance in the completion of this research project. A special thanks is owed to the hundreds of managers from the following companies who gave their valuable time and mental energy in service of this dissertation research: B C Hydro, B C Institute of Technology, B C T E L , Molson Breweries, MacMillan Bloedel, Simon Fraser Health Region, St. Paul's Hospital, Regina Health District, University of British Columbia, Vancouver General Hospital, Whistler/Blackcomb and Xerox. Similar gratitude is owed to the many faculty and graduate students in the Department of Psychology and the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration who filled out a number of questionnaires during various phases of this project. The assistance of the following members of the Industrial/Organizational laboratory at the University of British Columbia was gratefully appreciated: Kim Barchard, Kymm Davidson, Roseann Larstone, Allison MacLeod, Roger Tweed, as well as the many undergraduate volunteers who collected, entered, and checked data throughout this project. In particular the efforts of Kim Barchard and Kymm Davidson were invaluable to the completion of this research. Finally, I wish to offer special thanks to my thesis committee—Dr. Peter Frost, Dr. Ralph Hakstian, Dr. Dan Perlman, and Dr. Marion Porath—for their patience, support, and helpful comments. In particular, I would like to my academic advisor, Ralph Hakstian for the countless hours of practical and emotional support that he provided from the inception to the completion of this project.  Managerial Creativity 1  CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the present research, outlined in five studies, was to further our understanding of the creative manager, and to further our ability to predict who has the potential to be a creative manager. Although the management literature has hailed managerial creativity as a necessity i n current climate of rapid change and global competition, little has been done to help organizations to identify and select managers who have the potential to be creative on the job. M o s t creativity literature aimed at an organizational audience has taken a training approach, and has concentrated primarily on developing techniques to stimulate creative thinking among existent managers and others—e.g., lateral thinking (De Bono, 1971, 1985, 1992), brainstorming (Osborn, 1953), and synectics (Gordon, 1961). However, i f it can be assumed that people have differing innate levels of creative talent, then the organization that selects managers with demonstrated creative potential w i l l be one step ahead of the competition. Furthermore, the organization may get a bigger return on its training dollar i f the managers who are being sent for training have the capacity to make optimal use of the creative thinking techniques they are taught. The aim of the present research is to develop a system for identifying  management  candidates who are likely to be creative on the job. First, a model of managerial creativity is developed based upon multidisciplinary theories.  Next, psychometrically-sound tests are  developed to measure the various individual-difference factors specified in the model. Finally, using a concurrent-validity paradigm, these newly-developed tests are validated against a criterion of on-the-job creative management performance. Thus, the contribution of this research is two-fold; the research both contributes to theory-building on creativity, and provides tools for identifying and selecting into management positions, people who have the potential to take the organization in new and useful directions.  Managerial Creativity 2  OVERVIEW Creativity is clearly important to society.  From a purely economic standpoint, new  products and services create jobs, and global competitiveness  demands that individuals,  organizations, and societies adapt existing resources to changing task demands (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). As Cattell and Butcher (1968, cited in Kabanoff & Rossiter, 1994, p. 283) stated, "the standard of living in a country is, in the end, not dependent on the visible natural resources, or the monetary tricks of the economist, but is a function of the level of attainment and creativity prevailing among its citizens." Yet, creativity is a topic that has been generally neglected in psychology. In his 1950 A P A Presidential Address, Guilford pointed out the paucity of research on this important topic, noting that in the first half of the twentieth century, fewer than two tenths of one percent of the entries in Psychological  Abstracts focused on creativity. In his address,  Guilford (1950) challenged psychologists to devote more research to creativity, and for a while, his challenge seemed to make a difference; creativity research grew somewhat in the 1950's and a few research institutes concerned with creativity were founded (Isaksen & Murdock, 1993). However, in their analysis of Psychological  Abstracts from 1975 to 1994, Sternberg and Lubart  (1996) found that only one half of one percent of the articles indexed concerned creativity, leading them to conclude that creativity has remained a relatively marginal topic in psychology. And when it comes to managerial creativity, the paucity of research is even more dramatic. If creativity is so important to society, why has it been neglected by psychologists?  A  number of answers can be given to this question (see, for example, Sternberg & Lubart, 1996), but in the context of this thesis, four issues stand out. First, the study of creativity began with the concept of genius, and the examination of eminent creators who were unambiguous examples of creative talent (Becker, 1995; Isaksen & Murdock, 1993; Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). However, these "creative geniuses" are rare and difficult to study in psychology laboratories (Guilford, 1950; Sternberg & Lubart, 1996); in fact, many creative geniuses are not fully recognized until they are dead.  Aware of this problem, Guilford (1950), in his A P A Presidential Address,  Managerial Creativity 3  proposed that by using paper-and-pencil tests, creativity could be studied in the general population using a psychometric approach. Nevertheless, some researchers reject the assumption that non-eminent samples can shed light on eminent levels of creativity, which is the ultimate goal of many studies of creativity (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). Second, when one studies creativity in the general population rather than in eminent creators, the issue of criterion measurement of creative achievement becomes more difficult. With eminent creators, it is easy to observe that they have produced things which the general population does not normally produce. But when one studies the general population, how does one differentiate between those whose accomplishments are creative and those whose accomplishments are not creative? Some psychologists may have avoided this criterion dilemma by choosing less problematic research topics.  With a few exceptions (e.g., Runco, 1984;  Swenson, 1978), those researchers who have pursued the study of creativity in the general population have used self-reports of creative achievement as the criterion measure of creativity, and have generally included a disclaimer about the limitations of self-report criterion measures. Third, those who have studied creativity have attributed a confusing array of sometimes contradictory characteristics to the creative person. Especially when it comes to the personality arena, the list of characteristics attributed to the creative person have varied from study to study, with creative artists being described with one set of characteristics, creative architects being attributed with another set of characteristics, and creative scientists being attributed with a third set, etc.  For example, creative scientists have been found to have above average levels of  emotional stability, while creative artists have been found to have below average levels of emotional stability (Cattell, 1971).  Since scientists are generally attracted to domain-  transcending theories (Baer, 1993), this lack of consistency across fields of creative endeavor may have caused some researchers to despair of ever understanding the creative personality, and to move on to other more promising areas of research.  Managerial Creativity 4  In addition to there being a confusing array of characteristics attributed to the creative person, there has also been a diverse array of approaches to the study of creativity, and, until recently, the different approaches  have been isolated from each other.  Thus, cognitive  psychologists have attended to the mental representations and processes underlying creativity, while social-personality psychologists have focused on the personality variables, motivational variables, and sociocultural variables related to creativity. But, " i f you look for research that investigates both cognitive and social-personality variables at the same time, you w i l l find only a handful of studies" (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996, p. 682). Sternberg and Lubart (1996) suggest that in contrast to the traditional unidisciplinary studies, an understanding of creativity requires a multidisciplinary approach. OBJECTIVES  OF THE PRESENT  RESEARCH  Given the particular issues, noted above, that challenge creativity researchers,  the  objectives of the present research were (a) to develop a domain-specific model of creativity in managers  which  was  based  on  theoretical  underpinnings,  and  which  incorporated  multidisciplinary concepts from both cognitive and social-personality psychology, (b) to develop psychometrically-sound  paper-and-pencil  predictor  instruments  to  measure  the  various  dimensions included in the model of managerial creativity, (c) to develop a psychometricallysound criterion instrument, which was not of a self-report nature, i n order to assess on-the-job creative performance, (d) to validate the predictor instruments against the criterion instrument using a sample of everyday managers varying in creative potential, and (e) to generalize the findings to everyday "little c" creativity in managers, and refrain from drawing conclusions about " B i g C " creative genius in managers. Thinking in broader terms, however, the overarching goals of the present research were the following two: 1.  to develop a comprehensive psychological model of managerial creativity that would extend our understanding of this important managerial function, and  Managerial Creativity 5  2. to develop a battery of reliable and valid psychological tests that could be used by personnel departments for the selection and placement of management candidates. In order to develop a model of creativity in managers, the creativity literatures in psychology, educational psychology, and management were consulted.  In the next section, a  review of these literatures is provided. The purposes of this review are: (a) to define key terms, (b) to provide evidence as to the importance of creativity among managers, (c) to define and describe the characteristics of creative people, in general, and creative managers, in particular; and (d) to identify gaps in the existing literature.  Managerial Creativity 6  CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW THE IMPORTANCE  OF CREATIVITY  IN  MANAGEMENT  Historically, creativity has been considered to be the antithesis of rationality and thus the antithesis of effective management.  Today, however, among management scholars, it is  generally agreed that in the current climate of rapid change and global competition, creativity is an essential trait of successful managers (e.g., Chusmir & Koberg, 1986; Elbing, 1984; Henry, 1991a; Hermone, 1979; Kozmetsky, 1988).  For example, Fernald (1987) said that "the free  enterprise system and international competition make it crucial for a firm to have...highly creative managers" (p. 312), and Kolb, Lublin, Spoth and Baker (1991) said that "managerial leadership in large corporations and public institutions is...facing complex issues that require not only decisiveness but creativity" (p. 221).  Furthermore, the variety of specific managerial  functions that have been discussed in terms of creative management include strategy formulation (Davis, 1988; Kuhn & Kuhn, 1988), strategy implementation (Gray, 1988), cost-cutting (Rutherford, 1988), decision making (Kuhn & Kuhn, 1988; Whetten & Cameron, 1991), deal making (Kuhn & Kuhn, 1988), negotiating (Whiting, 1989), product development (Ramo, 1988), manufacturing (Ramo, 1988) quality control (Chandler, 1988; Crosby, 1988), marketing (Ramo, 1988), advertising (Trout & Reis, 1988; West, 1993), public relations (Hannaford, 1988; Ramo, 1988), corporate finance (Kuhn, 1988a; Ramo, 1988), human resource planning (Flamholtz, 1988; Winter, 1988), and employee communications (Ramo, 1988). As an academic field, the topic of creative and innovative management has spurred a number of international conferences since 1982 (Kozmetsky, 1987).  Managerial Creativity 7  DEFINITIONS  OF CREATIVITY,  INNOVATION,  AND CREATIVE  MANAGEMENT  It has b e e n noted that the terms creativity and i n n o v a t i o n are often u s e d interchangeably i n research studies (Scott  & Bruce,  1994;  Ford,  1996).  H o w e v e r , s o m e agreement  about  the  distinctions b e t w e e n the terms has recently e m e r g e d (see T a b l e 1). It is evident f r o m T a b l e 1 that w h i l e creativity has to do w i t h the p r o d u c t i o n o f n o v e l a n d useful ideas, i n n o v a t i o n has to d o w i t h b o t h the p r o d u c t i o n or adoption o f useful ideas and the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f these ideas. T h u s , W o o d m a n , S a w y e r , and G r i f f i n (1993) c o n c l u d e d that creativity is a subset o f the broader d o m a i n o f i n n o v a t i o n , a n d A m a b i l e (1988) suggested that i n d i v i d u a l creativity is the most c r u c i a l element o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n n o v a t i o n . F r o m T a b l e 1, another interesting d i s t i n c t i o n c a n be seen between creativity a n d i n n o v a t i o n .  W h i l e creativity i n v o l v e s the d e v e l o p m e n t  o f ideas "in-  house," i n n o v a t i o n "also encompasses the adaptation o f products or processes f r o m outside an organization" (Scott & B r u c e , 1994, p. 581).  In d e s c r i b i n g roles i n the i n n o v a t i o n process, W h i t f i e l d (1975) suggested that creative people  are the people w h o generate ideas, innovators are the p e o p l e w h o take an i d e a and  d e v e l o p it into something tangible, a n d entrepreneurs are the p e o p l e w h o take the p r o d u c t to market or i m p l e m e n t the practice.  It has often been noted that the skills r e q u i r e d for these  different functions are quite diverse and that the same p e o p l e are often not best at f i l l i n g all three roles. T h u s , K u h n (1988b) c o m m e n t e d that "those w h o generate ideas are often not the best ones to i m p l e m e n t them" (p. x v i i ) .  A n d f r o m the front line, the project m a n a g e r o f an Innovation  C e n t e r reported that the biggest p r o b l e m encountered at his facility was the difference i n personal traits and characteristics between inventors a n d entrepreneurs, because the qualities w h i c h m a y guarantee success i n one role do not necessarily guarantee success i n the other role ( S o i l , 1982).  Managerial Creativity 8  Table 1  Definitions of Creativity and Innovation Creativity  Innovation  N o v e l t y that is u s e f u l ( S t e i n ,  1974)  T h e creation and exploitation o f new (Kanter,  ideas  1988)  Creation of a valuable, useful, new  T h e process of bringing any new, problem-  product, service, idea, procedure, or  s o l v i n g i d e a i n t o u s e ... the g e n e r a t i o n ,  process b y i n d i v i d u a l s w o r k i n g together in  acceptance, and implementation o f new  a complex social system (Woodman,  ideas, processes, products and services  Sawyer, & Griffin,  (Kanter,  1993)  1983)  D o i n g s o m e t h i n g f o r the first t i m e  T h e development and implementation  anywhere or creating new  new ideas by people w h o o v e r time engage  knowledge  (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin,  1993)  of  in transactions w i t h others w i t h i n an institutional order ( V a n de V e n ,  1986)  Production o f n o v e l and useful ideas b y an  T h e successful implementation o f creative  individual or small group o f individuals  ideas within an organization  w o r k i n g together ( A m a b i l e ,  1988)  1988)  (Amabile,  P r o d u c t i o n o f s o m e t h i n g that is n o v e l a n d  T h e generation, development,  that is t h o u g h t to b e i n t e r e s t i n g o r to h a v e  implementation o f new ideas or behaviors  social value ( S i m o n ,  (Damanpour,  1986)  1991)  and  Managerial Creativity 9  In this thesis, the focus is on creativity rather than innovation. The definition of creativity that w i l l be used is that creativity involves the production of new ideas that are useful. Specifically, the focus of this thesis is on creative behaviours among managers.  Kozmetsky  (1988) states that creative management consists of "devising new concepts, new ideas, new methods, new directions, and new modes of operation" (p. xv). K u h n (1988c) goes on to make a useful distinction between the creative manager and the manager of creativity.  A creative  manager is creative him/herself, "producing creative content personally in the conduct of managerial tasks" (p. xvii) while a manager of creativity, in contrast, is a facilitator of the creative process, "working to generate creative content in others" (p. xvii). The purpose of this thesis is to examine the creative manager. W i t h this goal in mind, the creative manager w i l l be defined by combining the definition of creativity adopted above with the definitions of creative management and creative managers offered by Kozmetsky and Kuhn. Thus, for the purposes of this thesis, a creative manager w i l l be defined as:  a manager who devises new concepts, new ideas, new methods, new directions, and/or new modes of operation that are useful to the organization. In examining the creative manager, a useful starting point is the general research on creativity. RESEARCH  ON  CREATIVITY  In the research on creativity, four foci can be distinguished: person, process, press, and product (Mooney, 1962; Henry, 1991b).  The person research suggests that creative people  (henceforth referred to as creatives) have certain cognitive, personality, and motivational traits. The  process literature suggests that creative thinking can be broken down into a series of  definable stages. The press research suggests that organizational and societal climate, culture, and structure have a major impact on creative output. A n d the product literature suggests that a creative product may be the result of a radical breakthrough ('big bang creativity') or a series of incremental improvements (Henry, 1991b).  Managerial Creativity 10  In the present study, the major focus w i l l be on the creative person, with some necessary background on process and product.  Creative press, though an important and useful area of  study, w i l l not be considered in this thesis. PERSON Considerable energy has gone into trying to discover the characteristics of creative individuals.  These  characteristics  can  be  classified  into  three  categories:  cognitive  characteristics, personality characteristics, and motivational characteristics. Cognitive COGNITIVE  Ability  CHARACTERISTICS  Creative individuals are said to have exceptional imagination (Henry, 1991b), insight (Kuhn & Kuhn, 1988), intuition (Kuhn & Kuhn, 1988; Mintzberg, 1991), and judgment (Mintzberg, 1991).  They are said to display Janusian or 'oppositional thinking' (Rothenberg,  1976; Torrance & H a l l , 1980; Perkins, 1981) which is defined as "the capacity to conceive and utilize two or more opposite or contrary ideas, concepts, or images simultaneously" (Rothenberg, 1976, p. 313). They are also said to think in terms of analogies and metaphors (Perkins, 1981; M c A l e e r , 1991).  In the process of generating ideas, creative individuals are said to display  fluency (i.e., a lot of ideas), flexibility (i.e., a diversity of ideas), and originality (i.e., a high proportion of unusual ideas) (Guilford, 1959).  In addition, creatives are said to display a  sensitivity toward problems (Guilford, 1959) which includes asking the right questions and the important questions, being sensitive to the gaps in knowledge in their fields, and seeing where the boundaries of their fields can be extended or broken (Perkins, 1981). Moreover, creatives are renowned for challenging assumptions (Perkins, 1981), breaking out of old patterns of thought (Bohm & Peat, 1991), and redefining problems (Guilford, 1959). A uniformly low level of creativity is found in people with low intelligence, but all levels of creativity are found in highly-intelligent people (Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Wallach, 1971).  Managerial Creativity 11  This pattern of findings suggests that a threshold effect may operate, such that there is a certain level of intelligence below which high creativity is rarely found, and above which creativity is simply not related to general intelligence (Geis, 1988a). The result is that measures of creativity and measures of intelligence are largely independent within specialized groups (e.g., architects, scientists) and are sometimes uncorrelated in more diverse samples (Wallach & Kogan, 1965). However, there is considerable evidence that creativity is strongly associated with intelligence when the full range of both variables is assessed. Highly creative individuals generally score very high on measured intelligence (Barron & Harrington, 1981). In addition to a minimum level of general intelligence, Simon (1988) contended that expertness is a prerequisite for creativity, and that experts have 50,000 'chunks' of knowledge in their area of expertise, which takes at least 10 years of experience to acquire. Kaufmann (1991) reminded us that the point is not that having extensive knowledge in itself guarantees creativity of high rank, but rather that it seems to be a necessary condition for high level performance. C h i , Feltovich and Glaser (1981) demonstrated that novices try to understand a problem by working from its surface features and paying attention to the kinds of objects mentioned i n the problem statement, while experts focus on the deeper, underlying principles. Again, Kaufmann (1991) clarified the implications of this research by noting that in addition to the rather trivial point that experts outperform novices because they have more factual information about the task, the important point is that a higher level of organized, domain-specific knowledge gives the expert access to more powerful problem-solving methods. COGNITIVE Cognitive  EXPLANATIONS explanations  of creativity are  of two  major  kinds: divergent thinking  explanations (e.g., Guilford, 1956, 1967; Torrance, 1984a, 1988) and associative explanations (e.g., Mednick, 1962).  Managerial Creativity 12  DIVERGENT THINKING EXPLANATIONS One  of the most popular cognitive explanations of creativity is Guilford's concept of  divergent production (Guilford, 1950, 1956, 1967; Guilford & Hoepfner, 1971). In fact, Baer (1993) states that creativity has actually come to mean divergent thinking (as divergent production is now more commonly called) in much research i n , assessment of, and theorizing about creativity.  Divergent thinking is operationalized in tasks which ask an individual to  generate as many appropriate responses as possible to an open-ended question (e.g., "name all of the triangular things that you can think of"). Divergent thinking is part of Guilford's structure-of-intellect model, an attempt to organize all of human cognition along three dimensions: (a) thought processes, or operations, that can be performed; (b) contents to which the operations can be applied; and (c) products that may result from performing operations on different content categories.  These dimensions combine to  produce 120 different mental abilities; Guilford and his associates (Guilford, 1956, 1967; Guilford & Hoepfner, 1971) attempted to demonstrate the existence of many of these mental abilities by devising tests and factor-analyzing the results they produced. The full structure-of-intellect model has been called into question by subsequent research (e.g., Horn & Knapp, 1973).  Nevertheless, Guilford's theory of divergent thinking remains  highly influential. Guilford and Hoepfner (1971) stated that "of all the investigations in any area by the A R P [Aptitudes Research Project], those aimed at creative abilities...have been given the most attention, and have had the most consequences in the form of stimulating thinking and research by others" (p. 123). However, even within the area of divergent thinking, the theory has been modified considerably by those who have researched it.  Guilford's (1967) original  conceptualization of divergent thinking has been retained in current creativity theorizing not in terms of the 16 divergent production-factors that he identified or the 24 factors that his theory posited, but primarily in terms of the 4 general categories into which he grouped the factors: (1) fluency—the ability to produce a large number of ideas; (2) flexibility—the ability to produce a  Managerial Creativity 13  wide variety of ideas; (3) originality—the ability to produce unusual ideas; and (4) elaboration— the ability to develop or embellish ideas, and to produce many details to "flesh out" an idea. Moreover, many researchers group the various divergent thinking factors together as a single skill (Baer, 1993). There is considerable evidence for the single-skill interpretation when the same tests are scored for the various components of divergent thinking.  When tests of  divergent thinking are scored for fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration, the subscale scores are highly intercorrelated and do not seem to represent discrete underlying variables (Borland, 1986; Heausler & Thompson, 1988; Hocevar, 1979a; Runco, 1986a). Moreover, once the shared variance with fluency has been partialled out, the unique variance of flexibility (Hocevar, 1979a, Runco, 1985) and originality (Hocevar, 1979a, 1979b; Runco & Albert, 1985) are only spuriously reliable. In a survey of available evidence, Kogan (1983) reported that fluency scores (which measure only the quantity of responses) and the other "quality" scores (including flexibility, originality, and elaboration) correlate so highly that "a strong case can obviously be made for exclusive reliance on the more easily scorable ideational-fluency index" (p. 637). Validity Probably the most important concern about divergent thinking tests is their relationship with real-world creative performance (Runco, 1986b). This is the issue of concurrent validity when the predictor and criterion are contemporaneous, and the issue of predictive validity when the predictor precedes the criterion in time.  W i t h respect to the predictive and concurrent  validity of divergent thinking tests, past results have been mixed and inconclusive. In the mid 1970's, Kogan (1974) stated that "the concurrent and predictive validity of divergent thinking tests for 'real world' creative performance has not yet been definitively established" (p. 2). More recently, however, Runco (1993) stated that although the validity coefficients reported 10, 15, and 20 years ago were just marginal, recent research has reported quite respectable validity  Managerial Creativity 14  coefficients in the mid-.40 range (e.g., Okuda, Runco, & Berger, 1991; Sawyers & Canestaro, 1989). Concurrent  Validity.  divergent thinking tests.  A number of concurrent validity studies have been done with Wallach and W i n g (1969) compared divergent thinking tests and  achievement tests in terms of their accuracy in predicting the accomplishment of high school students on a self-report checklist.  They reported that divergent thinking was related to  accomplishment in the areas of leadership, art, writing, and science, but unrelated  to  accomplishment in the areas of social service, drama, and music. Similar results were reported by Rotter, Langland and Berger (1971) with second-grade children. M i l g r a m and M i l g r a m (1976) used a partial-correlation procedure in order to evaluate the unique contribution of divergent thinking to the prediction of creative performance when the variance that divergent thinking shared with intelligence had been partialled out. They reported that i n their sample of Israeli high school seniors, divergent thinking significantly contributed to the prediction of extracurricular accomplishment above and beyond the contribution of IQ. Additionally, like earlier research, they demonstrated that divergent thinking only predicts performance in certain domains. For males, the unique variance of divergent thinking scores was significantly correlated with achievement in leadership, writing, community service, and fine arts; for females, the unique variance of divergent thinking significantly predicted achievement in writing and fine arts. Hocevar (1980) regressed the creative performance scores of college undergraduates onto their divergent thinking and concept mastery scores.  Using a self-report inventory of creative  activities and achievements as his index of creativity, Hocevar found that divergent thinking was significantly related to performance in crafts, performing arts, and math-science, while concept mastery was significantly related to performance in art and literature. In a sample of 22-year-old Australians, Howieson (1981) found that two tests of divergent thinking, the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974) and the Wallach and Kogan  Managerial Creativity 15  Divergent Thinking Battery (Wallach & Kogan, 1965), both correlated to a similar and significant degree with achievements in art, drama, and general achievement as measured by the Wallach and Wing (1969) self-report checklist.  Neither test showed a significant relationship  with achievement in leadership, writing, music or science. Sawyers and Canestaro (1989) reported similarly high concurrent validity coefficients (approximately .45) for the Multidimensional Stimulus Fluency Measure—an adaptation of the Wallach and Kogan (1965) Divergent Thinking Battery—in predicting course grades and the creativity of the final course project among college students enrolled in an interior design course. Alpaugh, Parham, Cole, and Birren (1982) had three English professors score stories written by women ages 20 to 83, for originality and creativity.  The mean creativity ratings  (across judges) were significantly related to the women's scores on a number of divergent thinking tests, with correlations ranging from .34 to .55.  Furthermore, the observed relations  could not be attributed to age or intelligence. Runco (1984, 1986b, 1986c) investigated the concurrent validity of the Wallach and Kogan Divergent Thinking Battery using a sample of both gifted and nongifted fifth- through eighthgrade children. Runco (1984) found that the divergent thinking scores significantly predicted teachers' subjective evaluations of student creativity on a 25-item questionnaire. In contrast, IQ scores were negatively, though nonsignificantly correlated with the teachers' evaluations. Runco (1986c) also found that when the criterion was a 65-item self-report of extracurricular creative performance, the unique variance of divergent thinking (once its shared variance with IQ had been removed) predicted quantity of performance in writing and art, while the unique variance of IQ (once its shared variance with divergent thinking had been removed) predicted quantity of performance in science, performing arts, and writing. Additionally, Runco (1986b) found that divergent thinking scores predicted quantity of extracurricular performance in the gifted sample (in the areas of writing, crafts, art, and public presentation), but not in the nongifted sample. Finally, quality of creative performance was not related to divergent thinking nor IQ (Runco,  Managerial Creativity 16  1986c) and was not related to divergent thinking in either the gifted or nongifted samples (Runco, 1986b). It has been suggested that divergent thinking tests would be more predictive of real-world performance i f they contained problems that might be encountered in the real world (e.g., Hong & M i l g r a m , 1991; Okuda, Runco & Berger, 1991; Renzulli, 1982). Okuda et al. (1991) tested this hypothesis empirically in a sample of fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade children, and found that responses from real-world problems were better predictors of self-reported creative activity and accomplishment than were responses from typical divergent thinking problems.  In fact, the  concurrent validity coefficients were among the highest in the divergent thinking literature. Predictive Validity. Divergent thinking tests have also spawned a number of predictive validity studies. In the longitudinal portion of Howieson's (1981) validity study, cited above, he found that the total creative thinking score on the Torrance tests in grade 7 predicted achievement in the areas of science, writing, and general achievement at age 22, but did not predict achievement in the areas of art, drama, music, or leadership. gender difference in these results.  However, there was a striking  For males, the total creative thinking score predicted  achievement in the areas of art, writing, science, and general achievement, but for females, the total creative thinking score predicted achievement only in the area of drama, while the verbal subscore predicted musical achievement. The lack of success of the Torrance tests in predicting creative achievement for females was surprising, but not totally unprecedented.  Although  Wallach and W i n g (1969), in their concurrent validity study, reported that "all the findings ... were analogous for each sex considered separately" (p. 80), Torrance (1972a) observed that it is more difficult to predict later achievement from creative thinking tests for females than males. Furthermore, Kogan (1974) warned that the equality usually found between the sexes on tests of creative thinking "can ... not be generalized to the domain of actual creative behavior" (p. 2), and suggested that "there is some indication that males' and females' performance on divergent thinking tasks do not have the same implications for behavior" (p. 8).  Managerial Creativity 17  Torrance (1972a, 1972b) provided longitudinal evidence showing that students who displayed greater creative thinking abilities in high school were characterized by more extensive creative activities and accomplishments in later years. In 1959, Torrance collected data from a whole high school (grades 7-12) using the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Twelve years later, the follow-up criteria of creativity were three indices drawn from self-report questionnaires filled out by 236 of the original subjects: (1) quantity of creative achievements; (2) quality of creative achievements; and (3) creativity of aspirations. The results were consistently positive; the correlations of the three criterion variables with subscale scores of the Torrance Tests ranged from .23 to .45, all of which were significant at the .01 level. Baer (1993) noted, however, that the interpretation of Torrance's results was problematic because the correlations that Torrance (1972a) reported between intelligence and the three criterion variables were in the same range as the correlations between the divergent thinking test scores and the criterion variables, and the Torrance test scores, in turn, are significantly correlated with intelligence test scores (Wallach, 1970). Thus, it was not clear what, i f any, contribution intelligence had made to the validity coefficients Torrance reported.  The same  criticism could be leveled at Howieson's (1981) results reported above. Fortunately, Yamada and Tam (1996) re-analyzed Torrance's longitudinal data using multiple regression analysis. They found that adult creative achievement was best predicted by a subset of four predictor variables that included both the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking and IQ. Thus, the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking and IQ each added unique variance to the prediction of adult creative achievement.  O f the four predictor variables included in the regression equation, however, the  Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking was clearly the best predictor. Kogan and Pankove (1974) assessed the creative thinking of fifth- and tenth-grade children in 1967, using the Wallach and Kogan Divergent Thinking Battery. These divergent thinking scores were compared with self-reported achievement as high school seniors in the areas of leadership, arts, social service, writing, dramatic arts, music, science and general achievement.  Managerial Creativity 18  The fifth-grade divergent thinking scores did not predict overall accomplishment as reported seven years later; however, tenth-grade divergent thinking test scores "made a marginally significant contribution" (Kogan & Pankove, 1974, p. 802) in predicting activities and accomplishments two years later. Intellective-aptitude measures from Grades 5 and 10, however, accounted for "modest to substantial" (p. 802) amounts of variance in twelfth-grade activities and accomplishments, greater at both grade levels than the amount of variance accounted for by the fifth- and tenth-grade divergent thinking test scores. W i t h this result in mind, it is interesting to note that in contrast to the Torrance Tests, the Wallach and Kogan Divergent Thinking Battery is not significantly correlated with intelligence (Crockenberg, 1972; Kogan, 1983; Wallach, 1970). In pitting age against retest duration, it is interesting to note that while Torrance found that with subjects who were high school students at first testing, predictive validity coefficients increased as the follow-up duration increased, Kogan and Pankove found that predictive validity coefficients were larger for those subjects who were initially older (high school vs. elementary school), even though the follow-up duration was shorter for the older students.  In trying to  reconcile the differences between their findings and those of Torrance, Kogan and Pankove postulated a "sleeper-effect," suggesting that the creative potential tapped by divergent thinking tests is perhaps actualized later in life.  This suggestion fits i n nicely with the contention of  creativity theorists that ten years of accumulated expertise is a prerequisite for exceptional creative performance. Unfortunately, Kogan and Pankove's subjects do not appear to have been retested in adulthood. In summarizing the validity literature on divergent thinking tests, the present author sees two trends emerging: (1) with recent improvements in the technologies for assessing divergent thinking, the validity coefficients reported in recent years are larger and more consistent than those reported in the past; and (2) studies using adult participants report higher validity coefficients than those employing much younger participants.  Sternberg and Lubart (1996)  Managerial Creativity 19  conclude that in longitudinal research, divergent thinking tests predict later creative performance with correlations typically in the .2 to .3 range. ASSOCIATIVE EXPLANATIONS OF CREATIVITY Perhaps the most influential associative explanation of creativity is the one outlined by Mednick (1962) and operationalized in Mednick and Mednick's (1967) Remote Associates Test. In  an important sense Guilford's (1956, 1967)  concept of divergent production is also  associationistic, in that it uses as estimates of creativity the number and diversity of ideas that one associates with some cue (Baer, 1993). Baer (1993) suggested that Mednick had set himself the task of explaining how the ideas that result from divergent thinking are produced and evaluated. Mednick's definition of creativity—and the starting point of his theory—came from a quote by the French mathematician, Poincare, who stated, "To create consists of making new combinations of associative elements which are useful. ... Among chosen combinations, the most fertile will often be those formed of elements drawn from domains which are far apart" (quoted by Mednick, 1962, pp. 220-221). In keeping with this understanding of creativity, Mednick and Mednick (1967) developed the Remote Associates Test (RAT)  as a means of assessing individual differences in creativity.  Although it has not had the wide-ranging impact that divergent thinking tests have had, the R A T is still in use as a measure of creative potential (e.g., Gerhardt & Cashman, 1980; Chusmir & Koberg, 1986). Each item on the RAT consists of three words, such as 'cookies', 'sixteen', and 'heart'. The task is to find a fourth word that is related to all three words. In the above example, 'sweet' is the answer (Mednick & Mednick, 1967). As one can see, unlike divergent thinking tasks, RAT items are not open-ended since there is one correct answer for each question.  Managerial Creativity 20  COGNITIVE  MODELS  The only model that uses cognitive factors to typologize creatives seems to be that of Kuhn and Kuhn (1988).  Kuhn and Kuhn crossed "information required" with "dimensions of  thinking", and suggested the following classification framework: If decision-makers use low information and think in only one dimension, they are decisive and independent, 'dictators.' If they use high information and think in one dimension, they're analytic and rigorous 'computer programs.' If they use low information and think in many dimensions, they're flexible  and fleeting,  'scatterbrains.' If they use high information and think in many dimensions, they're transformational and synthetic, 'alchemists' (Kuhn & Kuhn, 1988, p. 388). Kuhn and Kuhn suggested that the integrated attitudes of the last type would seem to make the most effective executives under normal circumstances. Personality McAleer (1991) suggested that at the heart of the process of creativity, "personality and personal values shape an individual's intentional and sustained effort, often over a lifetime" (p. 12). PERSONALITY  CHARACTERISTICS  Much effort has gone into trying to identify the personality characteristics of creative individuals. However, it seems that all of this effort has resulted in almost as much contradiction as consistency.  Table 2 presents a listing of the characteristics that have been attributed to  creative individuals.  Managerial Creativity 21  Table 2 Personality Characteristics  Attributed to Creatives  Personality Characteristic  Source of the Attribution  Risk-taking (Risk-Taking, Open to Failure)  Henry (1991b); Perkins (1981); Lessem, (1991); Barron (1988); Gardner (1988); Hennessey & Amabile (1988); Simonton (1988a); Torrance (1988); Walberg (1988)  Tolerance for Ambiguity  Henry (1991b), Perkins (1981, 1988), Lessem (1991), Maslow (1959); Sternberg (1988); Taylor (1988)  Openness to Experience  Henry (1991b); Rogers (1976); Barron (1988); Simonton (1988a); Sternberg (1988); Taylor (1988); Torrance (1988); Anderson (1980) ; McCrae (1987)  Openness to Change  Lessem (1991)  Curiosity (Curious, Inquisitive, Spontaneous, Playful, Play with Ideas)  Hennessey & Amabile (1988); Perkins (1988); Simonton (1988a); Sternberg (1988); Walberg (1988); Rogers (1976); Maslow (1959)  Nonconformity (Nonconformist, Unconventional, Radical, Experimental, Uninhibited)  Henry (1991b); Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi (1976); Johnson-Laird (1988); Perkins (1988); Sternberg (1988); Taylor (1988); Torrance (1988); Barron (1988); Walberg (1988); Gough (1979); Maslow (1959); Kuhn (1988c)  Autonomy (Autonomous, Self-Sufficient, Self-Organizing, Sets Own Rules, Independent Judgment, Independent Thinking, Internal Locus of Evaluation)  Feldman (1988); Gruber & Davis (1988); Simonton (1988a); Sternberg (1988); Taylor (1988); Rogers (1976); Barron & Harrington (1981) ; Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi (1976); Henry (1991b); Storr (1972); Kuhn (1988c)  Social Withdrawal (Socially Aloof, Withdrawn, Loner, Reflective, Internally Preoccupied, Introspective, Need to Maintain Distance from Peers, Avoidance of Interpersonal Contact)  Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi (1976); Simonton (1988a); Sternberg (1988); Torrance (1988); Walberg (1988); Hennessey & Amabile (1988); Gough (1979); Rogers (1976)  Managerial Creativity 22  Table 2 (Cont'd) Personality  Characteristics  Attributed to Creatives  Personality Characteristic  Source of the Attribution  Social Integration (Socially Integrated; Charismatic; Have Impact on People Around Them; Not a Loner; Need to Form Alliances; Desire for Attention, Praise and Support; Seek Criticism and Advise)  Barron (1988); Walberg (1988); Maslow (1959); Torrance (1988); Gardner (1988)  Emotional Sensitivity (Experiencing Deep Emotions, Emotionally Expressive, Sensitive to the Needs of Others)  Feldman (1988); Gardner (1988); Hennessey & Amabile (1988); Simonton (1988a); Torrance (1988); Walberg (1988); Perkins (1981); Kuhn (1988c)  Need for Competence (Need for Competence, Drive for Accomplishment and Recognition)  Gruber & Davis (1988); Hennessey & Amabile (1988); Sternberg (1988); Torrance (1988); Walberg (1988)  Aesthetic Sensitivity  Barron & Harrington (1981); Perkins (1981)  Courageousness  Henry (1991b), Maslow (1959); Barron (1988); Torrance (1988); Walberg (1988)  Neuroticism/Frustration  Freud (1959)  Perseverance (Perseverance, Persistence, Discipline, Work Commitment, Task Focus, High Energy)  Henry (1991b); Gardner (1988); Gruber & Davis (1988); Simonton (1988a); Sternberg (1988); Torrance (1988); Walberg (1988); Kaufmann (1991); Anderson (1980); Roe (1953); Hennessey & Amabile (1988); Weisberg (1988); Barron & Harrington (1981); Kuhn (1988c)  Broad Interests  Barron & Harrington (1981); Simonton (1988a); Walberg (1988)  Opportunism (Opportunism, Seeking Interesting Situations)  Barron (1988); Taylor (1988); Walberg (1988); Hennessey & Amabile (1988); Sternberg (1988)  Self-Confidence  Barron & Harrington (1981)  Conflict Between Self-Criticism and SelfConfidence  Barron (1988); Feldman (1988); Gardner (1988)  Managerial Creativity 23  Table 2 (Cont'd) Personality Characteristics Attributed to Creatives Personality Characteristic  Source of the Attribution  Ability to Accommodate Opposite or Conflicting Traits in One's Self-Concept  Barron & Harrington (1981)  Creative Self-Concept (Sense of Self as Creative, Valuing Originality and Creativity)  Barron & Harrington (1981); Perkins (1988); Walberg (1988)  Attraction to Complexity  Barron & Harrington (1981)  Drive to Wrest Order from Chaos  Perkins (1981)  Intuitiveness  Barron & Harrington (1981); Barron (1988); Sternberg (1988); Kuhn (1988c)  Objectivity  Perkins (1981)  Subjectivity  Kuhn (1988c)  Managerial Creativity 24  F r o m the amount of controversy and contradiction in the characteristics of creatives listed by various authors, Tardif and Sternberg (1988) conclude that there emerges an underlying theme that the creative individual is an individual who is in conflict.  Another explanation is that the  personality characteristics of creative people are domain-specific; this is the idea that the creative musician, for example, has different characteristics than the creative scientist. In keeping with the domain-specificity hypothesis, a number of studies of creativity have explicitly considered the role of the creative domain. The issue of domain specificity w i l l be discussed i n more detail later i n this thesis. Barron and Harrington (1981) noted, however, that the search for domainspecific correlates and characteristics of creativity is not incompatible with the search for a set of core characteristics that span domains.  Kabanoff and Rossiter (1994) likewise suggested that  there may be a general creativity factor (Cg) as well as domain-specific creativity factors ( C ) . s  W i t h regard to C g , Barron and Harrington offered the following list of core characteristics which they had identified as continually arising in studies of creativity, regardless of the domain: high valuation of esthetic qualities in experience, broad interests, attraction to complexity, high energy, independence of judgment, autonomy, intuition, self-confidence, ability to resolve antinomies or to accommodate apparently opposite or conflicting traits in one's self-concept, and a firm sense of self as creative.  Managerial Creativity 25  PERSONALITY  THEORIES  This section will address two theorists if not two theories. ADAPTION-INNOVATION THEORY  Based on the idea that different cognitive styles may lead to different sorts of creativity, Kirton (1976) has drawn a distinction between Adaptors, who are creative within the system, and Innovators, who incline to more radical interventions such as transforming the system itself. The development of Adaption-Innovation Theory began with observations made—and conclusions reached—in a study of management initiative in the development and implementation of ideas leading to radical company changes (Kirton, 1961). According to Adaption-Innovation Theory, everyone can be located on a continuum ranging from highly adaptive to highly innovative according to their score on the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI). The following descriptions characterize those individuals at the extreme ends of the continuum. According to Kirton, Adaptors characteristically produce a sufficiency of ideas which are based closely on, but stretch, existing agreed-upon definitions of the problem and its likely solutions. Adaptors look at these consensual agreements in detail, and proceed within the established mores (theories, policies, practices) of their organizations. Much of their change effort is aimed at improving and "doing better" (see Table 3).  Managerial Creativity 26  Table 3 Characteristics  of Adaptors and Innovators  The Adaptor  The Innovator  Characterized by precision, reliability, efficiency, methodicalness, prudence, discipline, conformity  Seen as undisciplined, thinking tangentially, approaching tasks from unsuspected angles  Concerned with resolving problems rather than finding them  Could be said to discover problems and discover avenues of solution  Seeks solutions to problems in tried and understood ways  Queries problems' concomitant assumptions; manipulates problems  Reduces problems by improvement and greater efficiency, with maximum of continuity and stability  Is a catalyst to settled groups, irreverent of their consensual views; seen as abrasive, creating dissonance  Seen as sound, conforming, safe, dependable  Seen as unsound, impractical; Often shocks his/her opposite  Liable to make goals of means  In pursuit of goals, treats accepted means with little regard  Seems impervious to boredom, seems able to maintain high accuracy in long spells of detailed work  Capable of detailed routine (system maintenance) work for only short bursts; Quick to delegate routine tasks  Is an authority within given structures  Tends to take control in unstructured situations  Challenges rules rarely, cautiously, when assured of strong support  Often challenges rules, has little respect for past custom  Tends to high self-doubt. Reacts to criticism by closer outward conformity. Vulnerable to social pressures and authority; compliant  Appears to have low self-doubt when generating ideas, not needing consensus to maintain certitude in face of opposition  Managerial Creativity 27  Table 3 (Cont'd) Behavioural Descriptions of Adaptors and Innovators The Adaptor  The Innovator  Is essential to the functioning of the institution all the time, but occasionally needs to be 'dug out' of his/her systems  In the institution is ideal in unscheduled crises, or better still to help avoid them, if s/he can be controlled  When collaborating with Innovators:  When collaborating with Adaptors:  Supplies stability, order and continuity to the partnership  Supplies the task orientations, the break with the past and accepted theory  Sensitive to people, maintains group cohesion and co-operation  Appears insensitive to people, often threatens group cohesion and co-operation  Provides a safe base for the Innovator's riskier operations  Provides the dynamics to bring about periodic radical change, without which institutions tend to ossify  Note. From "A theory of cognitive style," by M . J. Kirton. In Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem-solving (pp. 8-9), edited by M . J. Kirton, ,1989, London, England: Routledge. Copyright 1989 by Michael J. Kirton.  Managerial Creativity 28  Innovators, in contrast, are more likely, in the pursuit of change, to reconstruct the problem, breaking free of the accepted thought, paradigm, and viewpoints which surround the problem.  In the process, Innovators are likely to produce less expected, and probably less  acceptable solutions. They are less concerned with "doing things better" than with "doing things differently" (see Table 3). Although Kirton's Adaption-Innovation Theory has been included under personality theories in this thesis, Goldsmith (1989) argued that the cognitive style dimension which the KAI measures lies between the various broad personality traits (e.g., sensation seeking, risk taking) and the highly specific observed behaviours that the traits are thought to determine (e.g., decision making, problem solving). Thus, adaption-innovation is more specific than personality traits, but more general than any individual behavioural act. In essence, Goldsmith argues that the KAI summarizes preferences or emotions about behaviour which are the result of personality traits, but due to its greater conceptual proximity to behaviour, the KAI should predict actual behaviour better than personality traits. Profiles of Innovators and Adaptors can be developed from the work of researchers who have investigated the relationship between scores on the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) and scores on a variety of personality scales. Compared with Adaptors, Innovators are more likely to identify themselves as sensation- or change-seekers (Goldsmith, 1984; 1986), as uniqueness seekers (Skinner, 1996), and as greater risk-takers (Goldsmith, 1984; 1986). Innovators have been found to be less dogmatic and more flexible than Adaptors, to have more tolerance for ambiguity, and to have less need for structure (Kirton, 1987a). Innovators are more extroverted than Adaptors (Kirton, 1987a), but Adaption-Innovation is unrelated to neuroticism or to social desirability (Kirton, 1987a; Goldsmith & Matherly, 1986).  Finally, Innovators  possess greater self-esteem than Adaptors (Goldsmith, 1985; Goldsmith & Matherly, 1987; Keller & Holland, 1978). The converse of the findings reported above for Innovators is that  Managerial Creativity 29  Adaptors are more conservative, are more likely to control their impulses, and are less ready to change than Adaptors. It is important to note that as a measure of creative style, the Adaption-Innovation Inventory was intended to be orthogonal (i.e., unrelated) to creative level (as might be measured by divergent thinking tests).  Kirton (1987b) claims that he has succeeded in this endeavor;  Kirton (1978) and Mulligan and Martin (1980) found a low correlation between creative style, as measured by the KAI and creative level, as measured by divergent thinking tests. However, other researchers have questioned the orthogonality of creative level and creative style on the basis of research showing significant correlations between KAI scores and measures of divergent thinking (e.g., Torrance & Horng, 1980; Isaksen & Puccio, 1988; Gelade, 1995).  Gelade (1995)  concluded that some divergent thinking abilities are related to creative style, as measured by the KAI. Concurrent  Validity  Kirton (1989a) claims that a large volume of empirical work has shown the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory to possess a high degree of concurrent validity in the sphere of economic problem solving, principally in organizational decision making and the acceptance of innovation in industry. A Related Model A typology of people in organizations that is similar to the adaptor-innovator distinction has been put forward by Geis (1988b). Geis distinguishes between the three types of people found in organizations. The first type is the Undertaker, who is involved in burying programs or projects.  The second type is the Caretaker, whose mission is to preserve existing programs,  products and resources. The Caretaker tends to see environmental changes as a threat rather than an opportunity. The third organizational type is the Risk Taker, whose mission is to actively shape the environment. The Risk Taker views changes or challenges in the environment as an  Managerial Creativity 30  opportunity rather than a threat. The Caretaker seems similar to Kirton's Adaptor and the Risk Taker seems similar to Kirton's Innovator.  However, there is no empirical research to  accompany Geis' model of organizational types, and Geis appears to see this model as a useful convention rather than a serious theory. OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE AND CREATIVITY Although perhaps not a full-fledged theory in the usual sense, McCrae's (1987) discussion of openness to experience, and its relationship to creativity, is of theoretical value. Openness to experience represents "an interest in varied experience for its own sake" (McCrae, 1987, p. 1259). Closed individuals "are more comfortable with the familiar and have little incentive to try the new" (McCrae, 1987, p. 1259).  McCrae (1987) argued that most of the personality  characteristics that are repeatedly identified in the creativity literature can be interpreted as components of the "Big Five" personality domain called openness to experience.  McCrae's  comments are reminiscent of Rogers' (1961) assertion that "when the individual is 'open' to all of his experience ... then his behaviour will be creative" (p. 352).  Although McCrae never  mentioned Kirton's Adaption-Innovation Theory, it seems highly likely that McCrae would interpret the Adaption-Innovation distinction as a component of openness to experience, especially in light of Kirton's (1989b) comment that Innovators welcome change—any change, any time—and the rest of us have greater or lesser degrees of resistance to change" (p. 32). Unfortunately, there are no studies published to date that look at the relationship between the KAI and openness to experience (Kirton, personal communication, June 1997). Concurrent As  Validity  with any other creativity-related construct, the biggest difficulty lies in deciding  whether openness contributes to the ability to be creative. To the knowledge of this author, only two studies have looked at the correspondence between openness to experience and real-world creative performance. In the first study, King, Walker and Broyles (1996) had university students complete the Big Five Inventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), a self-report listing of  Managerial Creativity 31  creative accomplishments over the last two years, and the verbal portion of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1990). accomplishments.  Openness to experience correlated .47 with creative  Openness to experience also correlated .38 with the verbal portion of the  Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. In the second study, Gelade (1997) found that employees working in the creative departments of advertising agencies and small design groups scored higher on openness to experience as measured by the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) than did employees working in occupations that were not evidently creative. A few other studies have also looked at the relationship between openness and measures of divergent thinking. In a sample of men, McCrae (1987) found that divergent thinking was consistently associated with self-reports and spousal ratings of openness to experience, but not with the other four dimensions of the Big Five personality factors (i.e., neuroticism, extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness).  However, in an earlier study relating divergent thinking  to personality scales, Merrifield, Guilford, Christensen, and Frick (1961) reported very modest associations reflectiveness,  between fluency  and originality and such variables as  aesthetic  interest,  and tolerance for ambiguity; there was no support for the hypotheses that  originality would be related to nonconformity, need for adventure, or need for variety. Furthermore, a number of studies have correlated Rokeach's (1960) Dogmatism Scale—a measure of closedness—with measures of creative ability, with conflicting results (Parsons, Tittler, & Cook, 1984). On the strength of the research conducted by McCrae (1987) and King et al. (1996), it appears that openness to experience bears some relationship to divergent thinking, although this finding is unstable.  Given that correlations across measurement domains (e.g., cognition,  personality) are usually fairly small, it may be that openness to experience and divergent thinking abilities are fairly independent predictors of creativity. In this regard, McCrae (1987) noted that  Managerial Creativity 32  "certainly there are many individuals who have the desire to be creative but not the talent" (p. 1259). Returning briefly to the issue of whether openness to experience subsumes Kirton's adaption-innovation distinction, it is interesting that the correlations which McCrae (1987) reported between openness to experience and divergent thinking were of the same magnitude as the correlations which Gelade (1995) reported between the KAI and divergent thinking. Moreover, although both openness to experience and the KAI correlated with other measures of divergent thinking, neither correlated significantly with "Obvious Consequences," one particular measure of divergent thinking.  Motivation Intrinsic task motivation and absorption in the task are among the most frequently and consistently mentioned characteristics of creative individuals (e.g., Gruber & Davis, 1988; Hennessey & Amabile, 1988; Perkins, 1981, 1988; Sternberg, 1988; Walberg, 1988; Henry, 1991b; MacKinnon, 1962; Barron, 1963, 1988; Simonton, 1988a; Torrance, 1988; AinsworthLand, 1991). Perkins (1981) stated that creators are involved in an enterprise for its own sake, not for school grades or paychecks, and that their catalysts are the enjoyment, satisfaction, and challenge of the work itself. importance  of  John Hayes (1989), a cognitive psychologist, argued for the  non-cognitive—primarily  motivational—factors  in  creative  achievement,  including the concepts of being hard working, self-starting, and goal-setting. MacKinnon (1962), in his studies of creative architects, reported that his highly creative subjects had developed a 'healthy obsession' with their design problems. Lubart and Sternberg (1995) found that motivation, as measured by two self-report scales, predicted creative performance when adults were asked to produce two creative products in each of four domains: writing, art, advertising, and science.  Mehr and Shaver (1996) measured creativity with a  creativity factor that was the first principle component of 4 self-report creativity-related scales: (1) the "What Kind of Person Are You?" scale from the Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception  Managerial Creativity 33  Inventory (Khatena & Torrance, 1976); (2) the "Something About Myself" scale from the Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory (Khatena & Torrance, 1976); (3) the Creative Personality Scale of the Adjective Check List (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983); and (4) the Creative Motivation Scale (Torrance, 1984b). Comparing the top and bottom deciles on this creativity factor, they found that high creatives (the top decile) reported significantly higher motivation than low creatives (the bottom decile) in both creative and routine situations.  1  Thus, creativity  has been found to predict motivation, and motivation has been found to predict creativity. Task motivation has been seen by a number of creativity theorists as largely explaining the difference between what a creative individual can do (as a result of creative aptitude) and what he or she will do. As King et al. (1996) noted, intuition tells us that successful creative people must be able to persevere in the face of difficult work. Amabile (1983), in a book devoted to the social psychology of creativity, described a number of laboratory studies showing that factors which undermine intrinsic motivation (e.g., work evaluation, supervision, competition for prizes, and restricted choices in how to perform an activity) serve to inhibit creativity.  Barron (1963)  summarized the importance of intrinsic motivation by stating that "without this intense cosmological commitment no amount of mental activity of the sort measured by IQ tests will suffice to produce a genuinely creative act" (p. 243). Three-Dimensional  Models of Creativity  A number of creativity theorists have developed models of creativity which take into account factors from the three domains discussed above (i.e., cognition, personality, and motivation). For example, Perkins (1981) has developed what he calls the "snowflake model of creativity" Analogous to the six sides of the snowflake, each with its own complex structure, Perkins' model consists of six psychological traits of the creative person: two cognitive traits and  'Note, however, that this finding is equivocal because Mehr and Shaver's operational definition of high and low creatives was based on a composite of scales, one of which (the Creative Motivation Scale) included motivation questions. Thus, the operational definition of creativity may have made it inevitable that differences in the motivational dependent variables would be obtained.  Managerial Creativity 34  three personality traits, plus intrinsic motivation. The two cognitive traits are: (1) the ability to excel in problem finding; and (2) mental mobility (the tendency to challenge assumptions and to think both in terms of opposites and contraries and in terms of analogies and metaphors). The three personality traits are: (1) high tolerance for ambiguity; (2) willingness to take risks; and (3) objectivity (the tendency to scrutinize one's own ideas and to seek criticism). And the last trait, of course, is inner motivation.  Perkins has surmised that although creative people may not  possess all six traits, the more of these traits they have, the more creative they will tend to be. Thus, Perkins' model appears to be additive. Another three-dimensional model of creativity is the investment theory of creativity put forward by Sternberg and Lubart (1991, 1992, 1995, 1996). According to investment theory, creativity requires a confluence of five personal attributes located in a supportive environment. The five personal attributes are: (1) Intellectual Abilities. Three intellectual abilities are considered particularly important: (a) the synthetic ability to escape the bounds of conventional thinking by seeing problems in new ways; (b) the analytic ability to recognize which of one's ideas are—and which are not —worthy of pursuit; and (c) the practical-contextual ability to know how to persuade others of the value of one's ideas. (2) Knowledge. For creativity, one is considered to require enough knowledge about a field to move it forward. (3) Styles of Thinking. Considered particularly important for creativity is a legislative thinking style in which one has a preference for thinking in novel ways of one's own choosing. The preference for thinking in novel ways is distinct from the ability to think in novel ways. (4) Personality. The personality traits that are considered important for creative thinking include the willingness to overcome obstacles, the willingness to take sensible risks, the willingness to tolerate ambiguity, and self-efficacy.  Managerial Creativity 35  (5) Motivation. Intrinsic task-focused motivation is considered to be essential to creativity. Sternberg and Lubart (1996) hypothesize that there may be threshold effects, compensatory effects, and interactive effects operating among the variables that make creativity more than a simple sum of a person's attained level of functioning on each personal attribute.  In fact,  Sternberg (1988) suggested that creativity would manifest itself in different forms depending on the blend of intellectual, stylistic, and personality characteristics that one brought to the creative endeavor; he proposed that certain blends of characteristics would be synergistic (and other blends antagonistic) with respect to generating creative behaviour. However, Sternberg stopped short of hypothesizing how the different blends might manifest themselves. Another multiplicative model of creativity is that put forth by Amabile (1983, 1988). The components in Amabile's model include domain-relevant skills (e.g., knowledge, skills, and talents in the domain in question), creativity-relevant skills (e.g., personality traits and certain special cognitive abilities), and intrinsic task motivation. Amabile suggested that her model is conceptually a multiplicative one because each of the components is necessary for some level of creativity to be produced; that is, no component may be absent if some recognizable level of creativity is to be produced because the levels of all of the components interact multiplicatively to determine the final level of creativity achieved. Evidence for the Interactive Effects of Abilities and Traits in Creativity King et al. (1996) found that openness to experience and conscientiousness both moderated the relationship between divergent thinking and self-reported creative accomplishments. In their study, divergent thinking was positively related to creative accomplishments at high levels of openness to experience, with subjects high on both openness to experience and divergent thinking reporting the most creative accomplishments. At low levels of openness to experience, divergent thinking was unrelated to creative accomplishments; even individuals high in divergent thinking reported relatively few creative accomplishments if they were low in openness to experience. The moderating effect of conscientiousness was much different. At low levels of  Managerial Creativity 36  divergent  thinking, conscientiousness  was  associated  with  higher  levels  of  creative  accomplishments. But for individuals who were high on divergent thinking, conscientiousness was negatively related to creative accomplishments.  King et al. interpret these results as  suggesting two pathways to creative accomplishments: (1) through high openness and high divergent thinking (as most conceptualizations of creatives would suggest); and (2) through high conscientiousness in the absence of divergent thinking ability. The Issue of Domain  Specificity  Scientists are generally attracted to—and search for—general domain-transcending theories (Baer, 1993). Thus, in the area of creativity, researchers and theorists have searched for common cognitive skills and personality characteristics that will affect people's creative performance regardless of the particular activity in which they happen to be engaged. However, spurred by the lack of consistency in the personality characteristics attributed to creatives and the differential success of divergent thinking measures in predicting creative performance in different domains, the assumption that there are a common set of traits that underlie creative performance in diverse domains has recently been challenged (e.g., Baer, 1993; Langley & Jones, 1988; Gardner, 1988). Since it is generally acknowledged that people are creative within particular domains of endeavor (i.e., the creative physicist may not be a creative painter), it may be that domainspecificity should be a major consideration when describing creative persons (Tardif & Sternberg, 1988).  In keeping with this perspective, domain-specific studies of creative  individuals have been carried out within the following occupational classifications: architects (MacKinnon, 1962,  1983); engineers (McDermid, 1965); mathematicians (Helson, 1983);  biological, physical and social scientists (Chambers, 1964; Roe, 1952); psychologists (Rushton, Murray & Paunonen ,1983, 1987); and presidents (Simonton, 1986, 1988b). One illustration of the impact of domain specificity is the clear finding that creative scientists tend to be more emotionally stable, venturesome, and self-assured than the average individual, whereas creative artists and writers tend to be less stable, less venturesome, and more guilt prone (Cattell, 1971, p.  Managerial Creativity 37  411). Another example of the impact of domain specificity is Schaefer's (1969; Anastasi & Schaefer, 1969; Schaefer & Anastasi, 1968) studies of the biographical inventory correlates of creativity in which his findings led him to develop field-specific creativity scales for his inventory (Schaefer, 1970). Albert (1990) and Barron and Harrington (1981) have both argued that while some characteristics of creatives span domains, others are specific to the field of endeavor. Expanding on this point, Albert has suggested that the particular operational demands of each field will be particularly suited to certain types of creatives. However, Albert has argued that motivation is one attribute that is required of creatives across all fields of endeavor. The Creative Manager  West (1993) has stated that there has been "surprisingly little empirical work on the business creative personality" (p. 53). And Kirton (1989c) has surmised that with respect to creativity, "businessmen ... have so far received scant attention ... mainly because they are so often viewed as lacking in creativity" (p. xii). However, despite the lack of a profuse literature, a few empirical studies and anecdotal articles on creativity in managers do exist.  McClelland  (1961, 1985) has reported that creativity and innovativeness are key characteristics of high need for achievement (nAch) managers. However, Chusmir and Koberg (1986) have reported that there are gender differences in the motivational correlates of creative thinking such that for male managers, creative thinking is linked with need for achievement (nAch), but for female managers, creative thinking is related to need for affiliation (nAff).  In a non-empirical  (anecdotal) discussion of creative thinkers in management positions, Sinetar (1985) describes the creative thinker as: (1) easily bored, preferring to move into untried areas; (2) comfortable with ambiguity and change, at least when it comes to work; (3) not risk-averse, often courting error by taking a "let's see what happens" stance; (4) needing to use their minds to solve difficult, personally fulfilling problems; (5) driven, experiencing their work as a calling or dedicated vocation; and (6) possibly not interested in social matters, and thus not socially "well-rounded."  Managerial Creativity 38  Using a component analysis of critical incident interview data, Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1987, cited in Amabile, 1988) found that the qualities of problem-solvers that were mentioned by more than 20% of interviewees as promoting creativity at work included the following: (1) Personality traits: persistent, curious, energetic, and intellectually honest; (2) Self-motivation: self-driven, excited by the work itself, enthusiastic, attracted by the challenge of the problem, having a sense of working on something important, and a belief in or commitment to the idea; (3) Cognitive abilities: having special talents in the problem-solver's particular field, having general problem-solving abilities, and having tactics for creative thinking; (4) Risk-orientation: unconventional, attracted to challenge, oriented toward taking risks and doing things differently; and (5) Expertise in the area: talented, having experience and acquired knowledge in the particular field. Conversely, the qualities of problem-solvers that were mentioned by more than 20% of interviewees as inhibiting creativity included the following: (1) Unmotivated: unmotivated for the work, unchallenged by the problem, having a pessimistic attitude toward the likely outcome, complacent, lazy; (2) Unskilled: lacking ability or experience in the problem area; and (3) Inflexible: being set in one's own ways, opinionated, unwilling to do things differently, too constrained by one's education or training. Although Amabile and Gryskiewicz used research and development scientists rather than managers as their interview sample, their results have been included in this section because they replicated the study with marketing and development employees from a large bank and marketing and sales employees from a major railroad (see Amabile, 1988) and found that the same factors  Managerial Creativity 39  were identified as promoting and inhibiting creativity.  Thus, there appears to be some  generalizability to the personal qualities that promote and inhibit creative problem-solving in a corporate setting, and it can be assumed that these qualities might apply to managers as well. A study that looked specifically at originality in Irish managers was undertaken by Barron and Egan (1968).  They found that in comparison with less original managers, more original  managers (those who were identified by the staff of the Irish Management Institute as making a novel contribution to their field) were seen by themselves and others as daring, tough, cynical, assertive,  power-oriented and unconcerned about their popularity or their obedience  to  conventional demands; they created an impression verging on willfulness and acerbity at times, though not in petty ways. They demonstrated inquisitiveness, cognitive flexibility, independence of judgment, and a strong sense of destiny.  Their vision was of conquest, mastery, personal  dominance, and command, and they manifested a peculiar combination of masculinity and a sense of the poetic. However, Barron and Egan admitted that there were difficulties in interpreting their results because some of their results were not consistent with previous American research that had compared the more original members of a professional group with their less distinguished peers. Were Barron and Egan's results representative of original managers, original Irishmen, or original Irish managers? Aside from the descriptive literature, there is also a prescriptive literature on creativity in management.  In commenting upon the need for creativity in management, Feather (1984)  suggested that corporate decision-makers and strategic planners needed, among other things, to be open to new and unconventional ideas, to take risks, and to overcome fear of failure. Also relevant, since corporate entrepreneurs have been heralded as highly creative figures in organizations, is Lessem's (1991) statement that the following five traits are needed in order to develop one's entrepreneurial potential: (1) capacity for insight; (2) possession of foresight; (3) tolerance for uncertainty; (4) willingness to take risks; and (5) openness to change.  Managerial Creativity 40  In synthesizing the descriptive and prescriptive literature on creativity in management, there emerges a picture of the creative manager as a driven, curious soul who likes to experiment and try new things, and who is not afraid of ambiguity or failure. PROCESS In the management literature, creative problem solving is almost synonymous with creativity.  Whetten and Cameron (1991) have suggested that since the job of a manager is  inherently a problem-solving job, "Creative problem-solving ability ... separates the heroes from the goats" (p. 166). Most creative problem-solving models follow a similar sequence of separate stages of thinking (e.g., Johnson, 1955; Mintzberg, Duru & Theortet, 1976; Simon, 1977). They begin with a problem exploration phase, follow it with an idea generation phase, and finally end with a judgment phase in which the strategy for action is chosen. Within each of these stages there is an expansive phase in which imagination is encouraged and "anything flies", and a convergent phase in which the output from the expansive phase is narrowed down and a selection is made.  Johnson and Jennings (1963) have provided evidence that suggests that these three  phases are empirically distinguishable and independent of each other in important ways.  An  interesting implication of this research is that there are important individual differences in profiles of problem-solving ability. High ability in one phase does not seem to imply success in other phases of problem-solving. Below, each of these phases will be looked at in turn. Problem Exploration Kaufmann (1991) suggested that there are three broad kinds of problems that a theory of human problem solving has to deal with in a satisfactory way.  First there are presented  problems, in which the individual is faced with an obvious difficulty that has to be resolved. Kaufmann (1991, p. 130) points out that an interesting subclass of presented problems are what Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) called discovered problems, in which the problem finder is able to "discern a problem on weak signals." success in the case of discovered problems.  Problem sensitivity is obviously essential to  Managerial Creativity 41  The second type of problem is foreseen problems, in which the individual anticipates that an unfortunate situation (e.g., reduced market share, massive layoffs) will result if present trends are allowed to continue unchecked.  Evasive action is the appropriate response to foreseen  problems. The third class of problems is constructed problems, in which there is no existent or anticipated problem, but an opportunity emerges when an individual compares the existing situation to an alternative, hypothetical state of affairs that represents an improvement over the status quo. For example, although the present microwave oven technology could be said to be satisfactory, an individual may see a problem in that there are no microwave ovens that refuse to turn on if something containing metal is placed inside them.  Kaufmann (1991) notes that  constructed problems are the most interesting problems in the context of creativity, and that innovation orientation or opportunity seeking seem to fuel success with constructed problems. The opportunity-seeking aspect of problem solving has been clearly noted by researchers observing managerial problem solving in real-life contexts. Mintzberg et al. (1976, p. 251), for example, contrasted opportunity decisions, which were "initiated on a purely voluntary basis, to improve an already secure situation, such as the introduction of a new product to enlarge an already secure market share" with crisis decisions,  in which individuals and organizations  "respond to intense pressures." Aside from constructed problems, Kaufmann (1991) also attributed creativity to the process of identifying a productive problem definition in a presented problem. Consistent with this viewpoint, several other authors have also singled out the identification and definition of the problem as a particularly important and sensitive phase in the problem-solving process (e.g., Hayes, 1978; Newell, Shaw & Simon, 1979). Perkins (1981), for example, has argued that when an individual comes to "premature closure" on the definition of a problem, the problem becomes imbedded in a narrow perspective that prevents the exploration of potentially productive and creative solutions.  And Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) presented evidence to show that  Managerial Creativity 42  problem finding has a more intimate connection to creativity than does problem solving in the traditional sense. It is the contention of this author that problem finding represents a combination of divergent thinking and evaluative thinking skills. That is, in order to find a productive problem, one must evaluate the existing situation and find it suboptimal, and then diverge in producing ideas for a number of alternative realities. Idea Generation The second phase of problem solving aims at generating as many ideas as possible, on the assumption that quantity breeds quality. Thus, divergent thinking ability is the major skill in the idea-generation phase. Osborn (1963) has argued that a major block in creative thinking is the tendency to premature evaluation of ideas.  The combination of these two concepts (i.e.,  generating a large number of ideas without premature evaluation) forms the basis of the brainstorming methodology. In terms of brainstorming research, the general design has been to determine the effects of brainstorming instructions on originality and productivity when brainstorming is used as a group problem-solving method. The results of this research agenda have been rather unsupportive of the brainstorming thesis (Kaufmann, 1991). However, Parnes (1963) has pointed out that the brainstorming technique is not inherently a group technique.  It appears that anxiety over  negative evaluations from others when suggesting "wild ideas" may, indeed, block the productivity of individuals performing in a group setting. However, research tends to show that the deferment-of-judgment  principle has a positive effect on performance when used in  individual problem-solving. Rickards and Freedman (1978) presented evidence that a greater variance in quality of ideas is obtained under the deferment-of-judgment principle; both a greater number of poor solutions and a greater number high-quality solutions are obtained. On the basis of several experiments, Maier (1963) reported that the principle of separating idea generation and idea evaluation, in itself, seems to be sound policy for promoting productive problem solving.  Managerial Creativity 4 3  Judgment  Until recently, little consideration has been given to the third phase of problem solving, judgment—probably because it has been widely assumed that people are generally much better at converging and evaluating options than they are at diverging and expanding options.  Even  Mednick (1962) who, in his associative theory of creativity, explicitly acknowledged the importance of selecting a creative response from among the many options, did not develop this part of his theory.  If, however, the quality of creative performance is theoretically more  important than its quantity (Anderson, 1960; Simonton, 1984; Taylor, 1984), then evaluation is a very important part of the creative process. Runco and Smith (1992) pointed out that creators must evaluate their ideas and options as they progress in order to know when they are on the right track, and when they have produced something worthwhile. In Runco's (1992) view, evaluation occurs when an individual selects ideas and tries to find the best, most creative, or most useful solution or response. As used in this thesis, evaluation means looking both for what is wrong and for what is right with an idea. Runco (1993) proposed that evaluation should probably be assessed whenever divergent thinking is assessed. There are numerous theories that recognize evaluative, selective, or critical components of creativity. Guilford (1968) included an evaluative operation in his structure of intellect model. Evaluation is also clearly suggested by Vygotsky's theory of imagination (Ayman-Nolley, 1992; Smolucha, 1992).  Simonton (1988c) suggested that the creative process involves the chance  configuration of ideas, with creative ideas earning social acceptance and sociocultural preservation—presumably only after some critical scrutiny. Bailin (1992) wrote that "evaluation and criticism are very much aspects of imaginative invention" (p. 121). And evaluation is also implicit in the current definitions of creativity presented in Table 1 on page 8 of this thesis. Given that products require both novelty and usefulness in order to be seen as creative (Stein,  Managerial Creativity 44  1974; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988), the requirement for "usefulness" implies that some evaluation must take place. Although Runco (1992; Runco & Smith, 1992; Runco & Vega, 1990) has done some empirical work on evaluation, Runco's work, in general, has involved evaluation of the originality and popularity of ideas rather than evaluation of their usefulness or feasibility. Yet in the management context of the present thesis, usefulness or feasibility is probably more important.  In speaking to the issue of usefulness or feasibility, however, Runco and Smith  (1992) did administer the Advanced SOI Test for Critical and Analytical Thinking (Meeker, 1990), along with divergent thinking tests and measures of the evaluation of originality, to a group of university students.  The Advanced SOI Test for Critical and Analytical Thinking  contains six subtests measuring different aspects of evaluative thinking. They found that the SOI scores were unrelated to the measures of originality evaluation, but were significantly correlated with the divergent thinking test scores. It is likely that the contribution of general intelligence to both divergent- and critical-thinking tests accounted for the correlation Runco and Smith found between the SOI and divergent thinking scores. PRODUCT In terms of creative products, a distinction is commonly made between incremental innovations and radical innovations.  Radical innovations are ideas that produce fundamental  changes in the activities of an organization and represent clear departures from existing practices. In contrast, incremental innovations are small ideas that have importance in terms of improving products, processes, and services, but result in little departure from existing practices (Dewar & Dutton, 1986; Ettlie, Bridges & O'Keefe, 1984; Marquis, 1969, cited in Edosomwan, 1989). Both types of innovation are generally regarded as valuable, and in this vein, Ramo (1988) implored us not to think of creativity "as always connoting breakthroughs, radical inventions, or major reorganizations" because "ingeniously conceived, well-implemented, small deviations from existing products or practices can yield spectacular results" (p. 10).  Managerial Creativity 45  Combining this distinction between radical and incremental innovations with Kirton's descriptions of Adaptors and Innovators, it seems logical to assume that Adaptors would tend to propose incremental innovations and Innovators would tend to propose radical innovations. TWO PERSPECTIVES  ON  CREATIVITY  Historically, deeply-rooted biblical beliefs regarding the original "Creation" led to the view that creativity is the domain of a privileged few (Burgett, 1982). This perspective spawned the conceptualization of creativity as an innate ability that some people have more of than others. Such a view was reinforced by individual-difference psychologists such as Guilford, Mednick, Torrance and others who developed tests to measure individual differences in creative ability. Eventually, this "innate endowment" perspective was challenged by humanistic psychologists, such as Rogers and Maslow, who expressed the view that everyone had creative potential, and people just needed to find some way to tap this potential.  This "human potential" approach  underpinned the era of T-groups, encounter groups and other psychoeducational activities (Zaleznick, 1988). Today, one may find both perspectives represented among creativity scholars, but the majority seem to hold a balanced view, in which it is accepted both that people have differing innate levels of natural creative talent, and that this innate talent can be augmented by training and practice. In expressing the balanced view, Kuhn (1988c), a long time creativity researcher, stated, "You can learn theory and techniques, you can practice as much as you like, you can improve your skills significantly—but current mental aptitude...does set some limits" (p. 44). In another example, De Bono (1991), a long time creativity trainer, stated the balanced view this way: "One does have to pay some attention to the principles of lateral thinking and also develop some skill through practice. Otherwise, one must rest content with whatever natural skill one might have in this matter" (p. 23). Given that the creativity literature has shown some validity for creativity tests in predicting real-world creativity (e.g., Sawyers & Canestaro, 1989; Alpaugh et al., 1982), and some  Managerial Creativity 46  effectiveness for creativity training in increasing scores on creativity tests (see Rose & Lin, 1984, for a meta-analysis), the balanced view is probably the most defensible. The two perspectives on creativity lead to two different approaches to increasing the creativity of a management team.  The belief that creativity is an innate talent leads to the  suggestion that creativity be assessed and used as a criteria for selection and placement in management positions (e.g., Ramo, 1988). The belief that everyone has hidden creative potential leads to the suggestion that managers be selected based on other criteria and then trained in creativity skills (e.g. Fernald & Nickolenko, 1993). And, of course, the balanced view leads to the suggestion that managers be selected based on their creative potential and then given training to help them realize this potential (e.g., Geis, 1988a). In the management literature, the training paradigm seems to be the dominant view, leading one group of proponents of the selection paradigm (Hurst, Rush, & White, 1991) to label the selection idea as controversial. Creativity training programs abound, as do articles on their effects (see Rose & Lin, 1984 for a meta-analytic review). The selection paradigm, however, has been left rather undeveloped. Although the idea that creativity could be used as a criterion in selecting managers has been noted (e.g., Ramo, 1988; Geis, 1988a; Mooney, 1962; McMullen, 1987), those suggesting this have, for the most part, not indicated how this would be accomplished.  One exception is  Kabanoff and Rossiter (1994). Though lamenting the neglect of managerial creativity, as a topic, by test developers, Kabanoff and Rossiter went on to make suggestions about existing tests with potentially utility for identifying management candidates with creative potential. Kabanoff and Rossiter admitted, however, that there was a tremendous amount of validation research that needed to be done before they could confidently recommend these existing tests. Hakstian, Woolley, Woolsey, and Kryger (1991) seem to be the only researchers who have reported any empirical results on using creativity tests as selection criteria for managers. And they found, in fact, that as part of a large assessment battery, a divergent thinking measure of creativity outperformed all other cognitive measures (including IQ, reading speed and comprehension,  Managerial Creativity 47  vocabulary, grammar, and arithmetic) in predicting supervisory ratings of overall management performance. GAPS IN THE EXISTING  LITERATURE  There are a number of issues that deserve further attention in the study of creative management: (1) Although a number of multidimensional models of the creative process exist, most of the research that has tried to predict real-world creativity has used a unidimensional operationalization of creativity, such as divergent thinking (this is, of course, mainly because the purpose of most predictive studies has been to validate a certain instrument). (2) Multidimensional models of creative management, in particular, have not been developed; yet recent arguments about the domain-specificity of creative performance might suggest that domain-specific models of creativity may be more fruitful than general models. (3) The multidimensional models of creativity that do exist have not suggested what behaviours could be expected from certain cross-dimensional combinations of attributes. (4) Although it has been suggested that creativity be used as one basis for selecting managers, specific measures for predicting creative management have not been established (Kabanoff and Rossiter [1994] have made some preliminary suggestions, but these have not been validated). Choice of creativity measures is an especially relevant issue given that creativity theorists have recently urged researchers to pay attention to the issue of the domain specificity when assessing the cognitive (Runco, 1987) and personality (Sternberg, 1988) characteristics of creatives. (5) Criterion measures of creative behaviour have been generally inadequate, consisting—with a few exceptions (e.g., Runco, 1984; Swenson, 1978)—of self-report inventories of creative activities or achievements (e.g., learning a new language, giving a public music recital, etc.). Such self-report inventories have two major problems. First, honesty and memory biases  Managerial Creativity 48  can influence scores (Runco, 1986c). Second, if novelty is considered to be an important part of the definition of creativity, then many past measures of creative activities have confused the terms "artistic" and "creative." For example, one can mechanically learn where to place one's fingers in order to produce a piano recital, without there being anything novel about one's rendition of the musical piece being played, and one can invent a novel way to sit in a go-cart that reduces wind-resistance; yet giving a musical recital will often appear on self-report criterion measures of creativity, and go-cart racing will never appear on such measures.  As Baer (1993) noted, the activities listed on self-report measures of creative  achievement all represent accomplishments of some sort, but "it is difficult to assess, based on self-report, how creative these accomplishments might be" (p. 36). PURPOSE  OF THE PRESENT  STUDY  Given the above assessment of gaps in the creative management literature, the purpose of the present study is to structure the domain of creative management by: (1) developing a multidimensional  model of managerial creativity that identifies  a number of creative  management types that are recognizable by business people; (2) developing predictor instruments for measuring the various individual-difference dimensions specified in the creative management model; (3) developing criterion measures of managerial creativity that are behaviour- rather than outcome-based and use a supervisor- rather than a self-report format; and (4) testing the concurrent validity of the new predictor instruments in predicting managerial creativity (as measured by the new criterion instruments) and overall management performance.  Managerial Creativity 49  CHAPTER 3 PROPOSED RATIONAL M O D E L OF M A N A G E R I A L CREATIVITY In  the creativity  literature, the three individual-difference  domains  of cognition,  personality, and motivation are consistently endorsed as playing an important role in creative performance. Therefore, a multidimensional model of managerial creativity needs to take into account all three of these domains. It can probably be assumed that cognitive traits determine a person's creative potential, personality traits determine the manner in which that potential is likely to be expressed, and motivational traits determine whether that potential is likely to be realized. These assumptions are reinforced by McCrae's (1987) argument that creativity seems to hold an intermediate position between cognition and personality with the novelty or originality of creative productions "implying both an ability to think fluently and flexibly and an inclination to do so" (p. 1258) and Amabile's (1988) comment that task motivation "makes the difference between what an individual can do and what one will do" (p. 133) with respect to creative performance. The Creative Management Model being proposed herein identifies divergent thinking as the important cognitive trait in determining a manager's creative potential, evaluative thinking as the cognitive factor determining whether the impractical aspects of a manager's creative potential will be held in check, openness to experience (specifically openness to change, risk, and ambiguity) as the important personality trait determining how a manager's creative potential will be expressed, and work motivation as the motivational factor determining whether a manager's creative potential will be realized. The justification for these choices will be given below, but first the components will be defined, and an overview of the model will be given.  Managerial Creativity 50  DEFINITIONS  OF THE COMPONENTS  OF THE CREATIVE  MANAGEMENT  MODEL  For the purposes of the present thesis the components included in the Creative Management Model will be defined as follows: (1) Divergent Thinking:  ]  Divergent Thinking represents the ability to produce many ideas in  rapid succession, and the tendency to be free from rigid and narrow modes of thought. (2) Evaluative Thinking: Evaluative Thinking represents the ability to discern the usefulness or feasibility of an idea. (3) Openness to Change, Risk, and Ambiguity (referred to hereafter as Openness): Openness to Change, Risk, and Ambiguity represents the tendency to like novelty and new ways of doing things, and the willingness to accept the ambiguity and risk that is associated with new ways of doing things. (4) Work Motivation: Work Motivation represents the drive to be a productive and efficient contributor at work. OVERVIEW  OF THE CREATIVE  MANAGEMENT  MODEL  In the Creative Management Model, the divergent thinking, evaluative thinking, and openness factors interact to determine a manager's predominant creative management orientation (see Figure 1). A manager who is high in divergent thinking, high in openness, and high in evaluative thinking will be a Global Change Agent. Global Change Agents tend to devise ideas for both incremental and radical changes to products, processes and systems; they are also adept at evaluating the feasibility of their own ideas, as well as the ideas of others. Furthermore, Global Change Agents will support others' change initiatives if they find them to have merit, and can promote the change initiatives they support by demonstrating their practicality.  Managerial Creativity 51  Divergent Thinking High  Low  Evaluative Thinking  Evaluative Thinking  High  Low  High  Low  High  Global Change Agent  Global Idea Generator  Change Facilitator  Change Enthusiast  Low  Incremental Incremental Change Agent Idea Generator  Change Antagonist  Change Inhibitor  Figure 1. Creative management orientations described by the creative management model. It is expected that these creative management orientations will be more fully realized, and, thus, more observable in managers with high work motivation than in managers with low work motivation.  Managerial Creativity 52  A manager who is high in divergent thinking, high in openness, and low in evaluative thinking will be a Global Idea Generator.  Global Idea Generators tend to produce an abundance  of ideas for both incremental and radical changes, but are unable to accurately assess the relative value of their various ideas. Global Idea Generators also tend to support and facilitate others' change initiatives, but, again, are not very adept at assessing which proposed changes have merit. Thus, Global Idea Generators may move forward with change initiatives that are impractical, and they cannot effectively promote the change initiatives they support because they cannot clearly articulate the merits of the change. A-manager who is high in divergent thinking, low in openness, and high in evaluative thinking will be an Incremental Change Agent.  Incremental Change Agents tend to propose  ideas for incremental improvements—but not radical changes—to existing products, processes, and systems; they are also adept at evaluating their own ideas and the ideas of others on rational and pragmatic grounds. Incremental Change Agents may support others' ideas for incremental changes if these incremental ideas have merit, but because they are low in openness, Incremental Change Agents are antagonistic towards others' radical or sweeping  change initiatives.  Incremental Change Agents can deter others from these sweeping change initiatives by carefully and logically articulating all of the reasons why these large-scale change schemes cannot work. A manager who is high in divergent thinking, low in openness, and low in evaluative thinking will be an Incremental Idea Generator.  Incremental Idea Generators tend to produce a  sufficiency of ideas for improving or fine-tuning existing products, processes and systems, but they do not propose sweeping changes. Incremental Idea Generators are not skilled at evaluating the impact or feasibility of their own ideas or the ideas of others. Incremental Idea Generators may not oppose others' ideas for incremental change, but because they are low in openness, Incremental Idea Generators tend to resist radical change initiatives. Incremental Idea Generators are ineffective in deterring others from supporting radical change because they cannot give a strong or convincing rationale for their opposition to such sweeping change.  Managerial Creativity 53  A manager who is low in divergent thinking, high in openness, and high in evaluative thinking will be a Change Facilitator.  Change Facilitators do not come up with creative ideas of  their own, but they recognize and support the meritorious creative ideas of others; because they have good evaluative skills, Change Facilitators are able to recognize which creative ideas have value, and they can facilitate the change process by explaining the merit of these ideas to others. A manager who is low in divergent thinking, high in openness, and low in evaluative thinking will be a Change Enthusiast.  Change Enthusiasts do not come up with creative ideas of  their own, but they like change for the sake of change, and will support the change initiatives proposed by others. Because their evaluative skills are low, Change Enthusiasts are not adept at assessing the feasibility of ideas; thus, some of the change initiatives they support may be impractical. Change Enthusiasts cannot convincingly defend the change initiatives they support, and, thus, are not good at selling those change initiatives to others. A manager who is low in divergent thinking, low in openness, and high in evaluative thinking will be a Change Critic.  Change Critics neither come up with creative ideas of their  own, nor support creative initiatives from others.  They may not oppose others' ideas for  incremental change, but they actively resist—and may even sabotage—radical change initiatives that are going on around them. Because their evaluative skills are high, Change Critics are skillful at analyzing the feasibility of ideas, and they can present a strong case in lobbying against a proposed radical change by focusing on the reasons why the change may not work. A manager who is low in divergent thinking, low in openness, and low in evaluative thinking will be a Change Inhibitor.  Change Inhibitors neither come up with creative ideas of  their own, nor support creative initiatives from others. They may not oppose others' ideas for incremental change, but they actively resist radical change initiatives that are going on around them.  However, because their evaluative skills are low, Change Inhibitors are not skilled at  assessing the feasibility of ideas; thus, they are ineffective in getting others to join them in  Managerial Creativity 54  resisting radical change because they are unable to convincingly articulate any flaws in the change initiatives to which they are opposed. It may be extrapolated from the descriptions of the creative management orientations that managers who are low in openness will avoid radical changes but may support and even propose incremental changes. This situation arises because, as repeatedly demonstrated by psychologists, small changes create less affective distress than—and are generally preferred to— large changes (Weick, 1984).  It follows that in applying what evaluative ability they have, the creative  management types who are low in openness will look for reasons why a radical change initiative will not work.  In contrast, the creative management types who are high in openness will  concentrate on reasons why a change initiative will work. Work motivation enters the model by determining whether a manager's latent creativemanagement orientation will be actively realized. Managers who are active and driven at work will behave as described above, according to their particular combination of divergent thinking ability, evaluative thinking ability, and openness to change.  However, for managers who are  passive, their latent creative-management orientation will lie dormant, and it will be difficult to distinguish between the various creative-management types. Failing to act upon their abilities and preferences, the following passive patterns will result: passive Global Change Agents and Global Idea Generators will neither propose sweeping changes nor actively support other's change initiatives; passive Incremental Change Agents and Incremental Idea Generators will neither propose incremental changes nor actively interfere with sweeping changes; passive Change Facilitators and Change Enthusiasts will not actively support radical and incremental change initiatives; and passive Change Critics and Change Inhibitors will not actively block or sabotage radical change initiatives. The Creative Management Model proposed herein is similar to—but has more components in the typology than—Kirton's (1989b) Adaption-Innovation Theory and Geis' (1988b) Organizational Risk-Taking Model.  Given an active motivational disposition, the following  Managerial Creativity 55  comparisons can be made: Global Change Agents and Global Idea Generators are similar to Kirton's Innovators and Geis' Risk-Takers; Incremental Change Agents and Incremental Idea Generators are similar to Kirton's Adaptors and Geis' Caretakers; Change Facilitators and Change Enthusiasts are not accounted for in the models of either Kirton or Geis; and Change Critics and Change Inhibitors are similar to Geis' Undertakers. RATIONALE  FOR THE COMPONENTS  INCLUDED  IN THE  MODEL  Divergent thinking was chosen to represent one cognitive dimension in the Creative Management Model on both rational and pragmatic grounds.  On rational grounds, divergent  thinking appears to be highly relevant to what a creative manager would actually do on the job (i.e., come up with new ideas for products, processes, and services).  Presumably, a creative  manager would need to come up with many ideas, and amongst them would be some gems. In support of this assumption, it is relevant that when Nobel laureate Linus Pauling was asked how he found good ideas, he replied that "you have a lot of ideas and throw away the bad ones" (quoted in McAleer, 1991, p. 13) On pragmatic grounds, no one has found a method for measuring creative-thought potential that has proven superiority to divergent thinking tests. In a recent review article on divergent thinking, Runco (1993) concluded that divergent thinking tests are useful estimates of the potential for creative thought and do lead to worthwhile predictions about who is capable of creative performance in the real world. Moreover, in addition to Runco's endorsement, there are a number of reasons to believe that divergent thinking tests may show even better criterionrelated validity to predict creative performance in a management population than they have with the populations used in previous research: (1) Prior criterion-related validity studies that have shown dubious validity for divergent thinking tests have used children and youth as subjects. Those criterion-related validity studies that have employed adult subjects have reported more promising results; this apparent differential validity could partially result from the fact that adults have had more  Managerial Creativity 56  opportunity than youth to accumulate the 10 years of expertise that Simon (1988) says is essential for creative performance. It follows that in an adult population of managers, divergent thinking tests may possess promising potential to predict creative performance. (2) The creative activities of managers (e.g., creative problem solving) are conceptually much closer to what is being measured by divergent thinking tests than are many of the criterion outcomes (e.g., musical and artistic achievements) that were measured by previous criterionrelated validity studies. (3) Hakstian et al. (1991) have shown that among the cognitive measures in an assessment battery (including tests of IQ, reading speed, reading comprehension, vocabulary, grammar, arithmetic, and divergent thinking), a measure of divergent thinking outperformed all other cognitive measures in predicting overall management performance as rated by supervisors. Evaluative thinking was chosen to represent the other cognitive dimension in the Creative Management Model on both rational and theoretical grounds. On rational grounds, evaluating the merit and impact of various decisions is an important part of managers' jobs. On theoretical grounds, evaluation has been found to be an important phase of the creative problem solving process, and one that is distinctive and independent from the idea generation phase.  And to  quote Linus Pauling again, if creative people "have a lot of ideas and throw away the bad ones" (quoted in McAleer, 1991, p. 13), it implies that they have to be able to evaluate which ideas are the bad ones. Recall, also, Runco's (1986c) finding that quantity—but not quality—of creative performance was related to divergent thinking. This finding implies that some other process is needed to supplement divergent thinking in order to produce high quality creative performance; the present author would suggest that evaluative thinking is that necessary supplemental process. Given that there has been "surprisingly little empirical work on the business creative personality" (West, 1993, p. 53), openness was chosen to represent the personality dimension in the Creative Management Model partially on rational grounds and partially on the weight of prior general creativity research. On rational grounds, change, risk, and ambiguity appear to be major  Managerial Creativity 57  aspects of the current turbulent business environment that has spurred the call for creative managers; thus, it follows that creative managers must be people who have a special facility for dealing with change, risk and ambiguity. As noted above, prior research also played a role in the decision to use openness as the personality dimension in the Creative Management Model. Particularly influential was McCrae's (1987) contention that openness to experience incorporates most of the personality characteristics that are repeatedly associated with creativity in the literature.  Furthermore, the findings  (reviewed by Goldsmith, 1989) that Kirton's Innovators are higher than Adaptors on sensationand change-seeking, risk taking, flexibility, and tolerance for ambiguity, and lower than Adaptors on dogmatism lends support to the argument that openness is an important factor in managerial creativity. Finally, work motivation was chosen to represent the motivational dimension in the creative management model on purely rational grounds. Intrinsic motivation has been found to be important for creative performance (see Amabile, 1983).  The point of including work  motivation in the Creative Management Model was, thus, to try to capture that 'healthy obsession' with work problems that MacKinnon (1962) had recognized in the creative architects that he studied. ASSUMPTIONS  OF THE CREATIVE  MANAGEMENT  MODEL  An assumption made by the Creative Management Model is that change is good. It must be acknowledged, however, that successful organizations require some stability, consistency, and coherence (e.g., Gray, 1988). Change Critics and Change Inhibitors, thus, have an important role to play as preservers of existing programs, products, and services. Furthermore, when the change initiative being proposed is unwise, Change Critics, in particular, may be the unsung heroes that play an important role in preventing the organization from making a foolish and potentially costly mistake.  Managerial Creativity 58  Another assumption of the Creative Management Model is that every manager has a creative management orientation that represents the dominant mode in which s/he usually operates.  This does not mean, however, that a manager does not operate in a non-dominant  mode from time to time. Geis (1988b) has suggested, for example, that there are times when even those who see change as threatening realize that the status quo approach to business cannot succeed because external threats are so ominous that the riskiest strategy would be to stay in a maintenance mode. Geis suggested that in their desire to avoid risk, those who dislike change would, nevertheless, support innovation and change in these inverted circumstances.  Quinn  (1988) has suggested, moreover, that while the majority of managers choose between competing values in adopting a leadership role, becoming trapped in the role with which they are most comfortable, the true masters of management are able to pursue one set of values, such as envisioning change, while looking for cues that will signal the need to shift to another, sometimes directly contradictory set of values, such as maintaining the existing structure. Five studies designed to test the present author's hypotheses about creative management are described in the following chapters. In keeping with Lee's (1991) call for the integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches to research, the first four studies, outlined in Chapter 4, take a qualitative or descriptive approach to validating the ideas contained in the Creative Management Model, while the fifth study, outlined in Chapter 5, takes a quantitative or empirical approach to validating the model.  Managerial Creativity 59  CHAPTER 4 CONSENSUAL VALIDITY OFTHE CREATIVE MANAGEMENT  MODEL  Given the academic source of the Creative Management Model, it was considered important to determine the real-world applicability of the model.  In the first four studies,  described below, managers—the real subject matter experts when it comes to management— were asked to derive and/or comment, upon various aspects of the Creative Management Model in an attempt to establish the truth or falsity of the ideas and hypotheses contained in that model. This particular qualitative or descriptive methodology for validating ideas will be referred to as consensual validation, for lack of a better term.  Consensual validation refers to a process  whereby the researcher's representation of the situation is validated through the agreement of competent others (Eisner, 1998; Sommer & Sommer, 1991). STUDY 1: THE CREATIVE  MANAGEMENT  MODEL  METHOD Participants Participants were 13 incumbent managers (8 women, 5 men), 6 from the British Columbia Hydroelectric Corporation (BC Hydro) and 7 from the British Columbia Telephone Company (BC TEL).  These participant managers had a mean of 11.4 years of management experience  (range was 1 to 26 years). Procedure Participants were each given the definition of a creative manager adopted earlier in this thesis (see page 9) and were asked to think about the behaviours they had observed in creative managers and the behaviours that they had observed in uncreative managers. Participants were then divided into dyads (with one triad), and the dyads were asked to develop their own model of managerial creativity by identifying the traits that are important for creativity in a management context (the hand-outs used for this part of Study 1 can be found in Appendix A). Each dyad  Managerial Creativity 60  then presented its model of managerial creativity to the larger group (descriptions of the participants' models are given in Appendix B). Following these presentations, the group was presented with successively more complicated models of managerial creativity arising from the creativity literature (the hand-outs used for this part of Study 1 can be found in Appendix C). Starting with Kirton's (1976) model, the group was asked to consider: (1) a 2-cell model based on high and low levels of openness; (2) a 4-cell model that added high and low levels of divergent thinking to high and low levels of openness; (3) an 8-cell model that added high and low levels of evaluative thinking to high and low levels of both divergent thinking and openness.  2  Following the presentation of each model, participants filled out a questionnaire concerning their reactions to that model (see Appendix D). For each model, the questionnaire asked (1) whether the additional individual difference factor it introduced was important; (2) whether the additional individual difference factor added anything useful to the previous model (applicable to models 2 and 3 only); (3) whether the creative management types specified by the model made sense; (4) whether there were real managers who matched the creative management types specified by the model; (5) whether the additional individual difference factor was necessary; and (6) whether the model was sufficient to capture the essence of creative management.  Finally, after all of the  models had been presented and discussed, participants filled out a summary questionnaire (see Appendix E) that asked (1) whether each of the three individual difference factors introduced (i.e., openness, divergent thinking and evaluative thinking) made an important contribution to managerial creativity; (2) whether there were any additional individual difference factors that made an important contribution to managerial creativity; and (3) which of the three presented models of managerial creativity the participant found most compelling.  F o r the sake of simplicity, work motivation was not included in any of the models presented because it was not believed to determine a manager's creative management orientation, but only whether that orientation is actively realized. 2  Managerial Creativity 61  RESULTS After the first creative management model, consisting of openness, alone, had been presented, 85% of the participants reported that openness matched one of the factors that their dyad had included in its own model of managerial creativity. Furthermore, the two participants who felt that openness did not match any of the factors included in their own model both conceded that openness added something useful to the factors included in their own model. Finally, 100% of the participants concluded that openness was a necessary individual difference factor to include in a model of managerial creativity. Yet, 92% of the participants reported that a model of managerial creativity based on openness, alone, was not a sufficient or complete model of managerial creativity; the other participant was undecided. Following presentation of the second creative management model, which added divergent thinking to openness, 92% of the participants reported that divergent thinking matched one of the factors that their dyad had included in its own model of managerial creativity. Moreover, the one participant who felt that divergent thinking did not match any of the factors included in his own model admitted that divergent thinking did add something useful to the factors included in his own model, and 100% of the participants reported that the addition of divergent thinking was an improvement on the first model which consisted of openness alone.  Finally, 92% of the  participants concluded that divergent thinking was a necessary individual difference factor to include in a model of managerial creativity. Nevertheless, 92% of the participants reported that a model of managerial creativity based on both divergent thinking and openness was not, in itself, a sufficient or complete model of managerial creativity. After presentation of the third creative management model, which added evaluative thinking to divergent thinking and openness, 100% of the participants reported that evaluative thinking matched one of the factors that their dyad had included in its own model of managerial creativity. Moreover, 100% of the participants reported that the addition of evaluative thinking was an improvement on the second model which included only two factors, divergent thinking  Managerial Creativity 62  and openness, and 100% of the participants also concluded that evaluative thinking was a necessary individual difference factor to include in a model of managerial creativity.  Finally,  77% of the participants reported that a model of managerial creativity based on evaluative thinking, divergent thinking and openness was a sufficient or complete model of managerial creativity; 8% of participants reported that such a model was not sufficient or complete, and 15% of the participants were undecided or did not answer the question. Following the presentation of all three models, 100% of the participants reported that openness made an important contribution to managerial creativity, 92% of the participants reported that divergent thinking made an important contribution to managerial creativity, and 100% of the participants reported that evaluative thinking made an important contribution to managerial creativity. Moreover, when asked which of the three presented models they found most compelling, 100% of the participants chose the third model which included divergent thinking, evaluative thinking, and openness. Given the overwhelming endorsement of the third model of managerial creativity, it is worthwhile to consider the participants' reactions to the management types described by this third model. For each of the eight management types described by the third creative management model, the percentage of participants who felt that the management type made sense, and the percentage of participants who could think of real managers who matched that type, are presented in Table 4. The majority of the participants had no trouble making sense of—or identifying real managers who resembled—each of the eight management types.  One participant had trouble  making sense of the two types of managers who were described as proposing ideas for incremental change, but not proposing ideas for global change (i.e., Incremental Change Agents and Incremental Idea Generators), and another participant had trouble making sense of the two types of managers who, though not developing ideas of their own, supported or blocked others' change initiatives without having a clear rationale for doing so (i.e., Change Enthusiasts and Change Inhibitors). As would be expected, each of these two participants also indicated that s/he  Managerial Creativity 63  Table 4 Percentage of Study 1 Participants Who Felt That the Creative Management Types Specified in the Third Model of Managerial Creativity Made Sense and Represented Real Managers (n = 13) % of Participants for Whom the Management Type Made Sense  % of Participants Able to Identify Real Managers Who Matched the Management Type  Global Change Agent  100  100  Global Idea Generator  100  100  Incremental Change Agent  92  92  Incremental Idea Generator  92  92  Change Facilitator  100  100  Change Enthusiast  92  92  Change Critic  100  100  Change Inhibitor  92  92  Management Type  Managerial Creativity 64  could not identify managers who resembled the two management types that s/he was having difficulty conceptualizing. Furthermore, despite the overwhelming endorsement of the third model of managerial creativity, 77% of the participants felt that there were additional individual-difference factors that made an important contribution to managerial creativity. These additional factors, along with the percentage of participants who suggested them, are presented in Table 5. From Table 5 it is apparent that almost one-third of the participants thought that the ability to carry a creative idea through to implementation was important to managerial creativity. However, it may be recalled that in Chapter 2 a distinction was made between creativity and innovation; while innovation involves the production and implementation of ideas, creativity is the subset of the broader domain of innovation having to do with the production of ideas. Further, it may be recalled that creatives are not necessarily the best implementors (see Kuhn, 1988b; Soil, 1982). It may also be noted, from Table 5, that almost one-third of the participants thought that either leadership or salesmanship were important to managerial creativity.  Leadership and  salesmanship have been grouped together here because they both seem to imply the ability to get others to follow you or accept your ideas. In the context of creativity, this implies the ability to sell your ideas and get others to agree with your change initiatives.  In the proposed Creative  Management Model, some hypotheses are made about salesmanship effectiveness based on evaluative thinking ability; that is, it is hypothesized that, relative to managers low in evaluative thinking, managers high in evaluative thinking will be better able to attract or deter others from a change initiative because the arguments they present will be more convincing. Nevertheless, it must be granted that there is most likely a personality aspect to persuasiveness as well. It was decided, however, not to add leadership or salesmanship to the Creative Management Model for two reasons: (1) on pragmatic grounds, a 16-cell model of managerial creativity is too complicated; and (2) on theoretical grounds, creativity focuses on idea production, and having  Managerial Creativity 65  Table 5 Percentage of Study 1 Participants Suggesting Additional Creative Management Factors (n=13) Individual Difference Factor  % of Participants Suggesting the Factor  Implementation  31  Leadership  23  Motivation/Task Focus  15  Salesmanship  8  Positive Attitude  8  Unconventional "Out of Box" Thinking  8  Intuition  8  Managerial Creativity 66  the evaluative ability to know which ideas generated are feasible to pursue is an important part of the whole creative process (see Bailin, 1992), but the persuasiveness implication of evaluative ability really lies at the creativity/innovation juncture. It is also interesting to note, from Table 5, that almost one-sixth of the participants suggested that motivation is important to managerial creativity. Motivation, of course, is one of the individual difference dimensions in the Creative Management M o d e l , but, for the sake of simplicity, it was not presented to the focus group participants because it does not serve to define the creative management orientations. It is, therefore, encouraging to note that some focus group participants independently recognized the potential importance of motivation for managerial creativity. Intuition and unconventional thinking both appear in Table 5, each having been mentioned by one participant. Although both of these factors are reported in the creativity literature, each has its own measurement difficulties. It is difficult to imagine how one might construct a test to measure intuitive ability, and unconventional thinking is really another term for originality, which, i f we recall Hocevar's (1979a, 1979b) work, is redundant with fluency and is unreliable once fluency scores are controlled. Furthermore, since intuition and unconventional thinking were each mentioned by only one participant, it did not appear to be an oversight to leave them out of the Creative Management M o d e l . Positive attitude is the final individual difference factor appearing in Table 5.  Although  optimism seems like a logical trait for a creative manager to have, it nevertheless seems to be an idiosyncratic suggestion as it has neither appeared in the literature on the creative personality, nor was it mentioned by more than one focus group participant. Thus, it was not considered further. In summary, the Creative Management M o d e l (the third model presented), which includes divergent thinking, evaluative thinking and openness, and which was endorsed by a majority of the participants, remained essentially unchanged following Study 1.  Managerial Creativity 67  STUDY 2: THE CREATIVE  MANAGEMENT  TYPES  METHOD Participants Participants were 18 incumbent managers (5 women, 13 men) from B C T E L .  These  participant managers had a mean of 12.5 years of management experience (range was 1 to 27 years). Procedure Participants were given detailed descriptions of the three dimensions—divergent thinking, evaluative thinking, and openness—and an empty eight-cell model, and were asked to fill in each cell with a description of the behaviour that they would expect to be displayed by a person inhabiting that cell (different participants started at different places in the model to avoid order effects and consistent fatigue effects). Participants were instructed that if, for any particular cell, they could not imagine what that particular combination of traits would look like, or they would not expect that particular combination of traits to exist, they should make a note of this in the cell. Finally, participants were asked to complete their descriptions of each cell by choosing a label for the type of manager that inhabited that cell (see Appendix F). RESULTS No participant indicated difficulty in imagining what any of the cells would look like. One participant failed to produce a behavioural description for the high openness/low divergent thinking/high evaluative thinking cell, but this was the result of time constraints rather than an inability to imagine that combination of traits. For each cell in the Creative Management Model, the percentage of participants who, after reading the combination of traits, wrote a behavioural description that contained the expected behaviours is given in Table 6.  For each cell, one  example of a complete behavioural description (including label) written by a participant is also given in Table 6.  Managerial Creativity 68  Ul  rt CD E  & ui  3  O  tt 3 rt  &  .PH  >  Xi  rt  s_  co P« rt rt T3  ^ CD  <D  -C5  o  Q  _  co (3 O  CO  60  oo  5  g  ^>  ° ^  3  N  °  CD  CD  60  <U _  E 'E & E  CD  3  >-  g E  CD  3  ti VH S 2  X3  s-i  O  (D  g  <D  OH  3  <D  O  >  CD  M  (u  -  O  U O  >  >  PH  °  O  <5  £3  Ii  (U  o  co  M  00  c H—» O  U  oo Ui  2 i PHO  T3 3 3  O  O in  (0 1  13  tt rt  g  <D  x  (N  rt _ u rt CD CD 3 T3  Ui  C  00 Ul  3  O  '> rt XI CD  m T 3  CD -4—>  o <t)  W  rt XI o  tt T3  -O  8  <D  H-t  I  oo  <u SP  > a U  ex  PH PH  o ui  <  O O  oo  rt  CD  3  P H  „  o CM  OO  O  H—'  1  —  1  1  3  CJ  CD  60 3  g  oo  oo  00  rt  60 ^ » 3 CD rt  1  00  U _> '+-»  >  - rt 2 S PH O O Qj  CD  ti o  co  rt 3 CD  CD  a«  CD  2  b0 xi  U  O  oo  oo  CD <D  5  oo rt  CD  „ 42 rt  rt^  »  XI o  <U -3 60 60 tt O  2 c3  — i  60 13 S rt B3  T3 CO  O  60  O H  a -a rt  B B rt rt X XI oo .3 o rt ^ o rt m  CD  T3  «  O  £.3 Xj X)  CD oo  3 'Lo co rtO  CD O  g  PH d,  M-H  3 00  .2 rt  1 - 1  i-i  H  c o  rt B  o U CD  U  00 CO CD  3 3  <D PH  O  X  60  CO CO  3  <U  60 Ul <U > 60  23  J=l 3 60 -H L3 ^3  CD  3 3  3  "rt >  60 3 3  CD  o  PH  x 60 CN  CD  3 CD 60  3  Ul  CD  >  P  tt  13 o . > O 3 rt -3  CO  (N  rt CO rt  ^  *-!  CO ^  iTv  ffl  <U 3 D 60 co co rt rt  <D  E  60  •X 3 60 - 3  tt •» T 3  oo s3 a> «j H-< 3 rt 3 E Q  O  O O </-)  VD  1^  C  ^  M  O  i3 <u Xj XI  G  -S  o?  o  oo  u  O  E  .tt  H—*  O  o  PH  rt rt  3  S 55 co  rt  (U O  CD  a .2 "2 x? ° rt tt60 0  00  U  -2 rt  <U  oo  T3  rt •S ^ ^ rt  >  O  3 3  3 60 uti rt 3  5LI  B X  33  ••  O  B ©  > O  'S  u  o rt  £?"2 s< = > rt o  60  oo  O  oo  .a &  CD "3  O  3  ° M  •B 3 H > <U h rt 9 rt O  A,  oo  a f XI3 X ! -j3 > 3 •g 31 3 x t>- ^ 3 x SP «> > <~ 3 rt B o .SP s „ "rt  o 3rt „ XI _  CD  s .a «o . 23 X  g  E <u  T3  Xl '5 —  <D  >  u 3 O u H-> ••-* i rt 3 X 3 N  OO  o  oo  •3 Q  CD  i2 eo u  «  S  3 3 <H_I rt 3  o  S  ffl Q  rt  H—>  rt <U  oo  _o  3 S  -8 .. ^)ao  T3  J 2  S3  ,o  CD  •s >  CL, Q  .S  M C  <U  •S  <u  "> "3  o  oo  c2  13 > o -1  60 3 3 H X H •  CD  Q CD  3  X ! \Ei "00 -a CD ^  z  PH  £  T3 P H 3 rt 3 co rt XI rt OO  Managerial Creativity 69  ii  60  oo  ii  X  o  3§  60 « T3 <D  60 C  a g rt 'rt x oo  t! <u o  OH O  &  g  rtX a rt o W • • •S -t-»  PH  1  — rt  1  8  -3  1*  00 <U N  ° fe  'a a o  0) X  60 oo <D O  2 3 3t o00  i-i  OH  rt CD  1  x  rt ii  T3 -O  5  T3 <D <L> JJ C  co  CO CO  •a  oo  _  o  oo  --H  O  5  oo  X U  T3 C  <U X  O  OH  rt  • S M U Gto IT)  00  oo  vo  CN  O  O j ffl <u o 60 a *-* rt a a X o 8  00 00 S-l  a a  o  <D  • i-H  > rt  X O  m <D  •*—< o 0)  OH  X  W  a o rt  c o U U  oo  O  O  oo rt  rt rt fi X  rt  ,o OM  rt ii  ¥  u  rt  •-H  T3  oo  t>  O  60  o  ^ s  60  a .„  a rt  <U  tirt  ' f i  O  " H  O  O  c  hH  00  O  O  Q  Q  00 00  ii  c  a  i-i <u  fi a OH  o  xi  60  >  CO  >  60  XI  H  5 xl  60 ;-H  00  3  rt  ii  e  -3X  .g  a-  <U  X  60  1 O  i-i o rt o OH „  «O C  oo  fi oo  D Trt oo 3 O  <u >  3  O  8  >  rt  ^ 13 13  o  c  60  c  OH  fi ^ X ii O  Q  ^  O  60  ii O  ,ii OH 3 00  Q  c c Hi  OH  O x  60  -h^  fi 0> 60  ^ Q  3  60  3  * .a O  X  o 00  'oo 'S ' c rt 2  oo  o  ii 60  C  rt rt  O  O  a 00  OH fi OH ii O oo  00  3  £ 3.s  h-l  3  OH 3  rt  Q  O  H  .—I  60  rt 13  o  <u > s ^ XI rt o o OH OH O o „ <D oo o O rt 1-1 ^ a a c rt "SO CO <D ii rt <D 60 3 OH O ^  OH  00  60  13  60  > fi  ^ .2 O  h-l  X  H  Manageri;al Creativity 70  00  CD  u.  a  3 rt O PH '> 'o  a. o rt i-H <U  ctf "-115  a CD  m  ™ rt  rt rt T3 13 CD CD 3 13 J rt CM  o  CD  2  PH  e  §  'P  O H . &  a  B  rt  co  W Q  a .a CO  O  U  H  pj  rt rt  „  •s  s 6 O  •«  1a  813  fi 3 O  H  fe  s .a  1)  a CD  I-i CD  </> 1)  CD T3 & fe  w  co fl  CD 60  O  r-i  i—i  co  CD  •3gfi 5 '§ 8 •3 .2 a a o ..a O Crt -S §3  -° co  CD  rt o ii 60  3  -4—»  o  rt  .-•  .fi 0) fi  OH  O  -rt  i—i  A « rt 2  rt I-I  3  rt  O  3  <tf  60"^  3 oo 3 O o ii  •2 a 200 b 3 .a a O  rt oo 3 i3 3 ^3 -rt  Q £ <U 3 OO OO O CD 'S s s > o c3 s ^ -fi 13 fiJ -3 55 5S O co UCD -M ^ 00 .-!=! o o •rt , ~. rt « .rt rt >, > T3 H' —» •SH.S, fi o CD rt •e -e -S a ° oo O 3 CD l-H C C 3 .a w a a co  &H  o  3  «3 * 5 Hp  fi  O 13  00 <N  oo co r- oo  00 CN  rrt  O  T—H  VO  rn  -fi <^> I'S  co rt  Ji *>  13 oo fi  co  rt  4) rt SP  X  o  CO  (H  3 O  ">  rt CD  PQ •4—»  o  CD OH X  W  Crt  oo  CD  p  .a aO D <£ fi  >->  13 •rt  2  £  "  \P  fi  . rt  13  C  ii -*—> rt 3 13  U rt 60 X5 fi O  > CD  rt  -C  CD  a  CD  •4—<  rt CD  60  CD  CD  oo  O OH  O  OH  Ul  *3 I  O  oo  OO  CD  co  00  rrt  rt  O  O  £  O  S ^ „3  fi  O  00  rt rt I-l " 3 oo O ii o o < Q  o Q  H  CD >  <U  -fi 13 o o  rt 3 tn 13 OO H > OH ii . 3  1>  a§ o  Ji" «60 Xl  rt  oo  rt  rt  3 ft  rt o  •3 ^ rt 2 rt  OO  nj  CD Ort O  2 °  Q  co  CD O  Q  rt I-I  H  oo e '-4—»  rt 3 O  U U  OO  ii C C  ii OH  O  o  0) >  fi o 60 1)  >  H—1  60  rt 3  =1 S| f l -fi 3 oo a "5  fi  CD >  fi fi  60 Ii  ii  rt 3  CD  • rt  l-H  oo oo  60  CD OH  O o  h-l VO  CD  >  60  'ft  C  3  Q  hp a 0  rt  >  60  3  =5  .a  O  X  h-l H  Managerial Creativity 71  rt  CD  60 G rt  •a ^  to  3  PQ co  Pi  ca  CD  cj  e e C J  2  CD  •3 CD  >  3  O  CD  •S  CO 3  S 3 2 33 rt rt  « tt rt u  CD 3  CD  CO  60  • —i  o fc  •  *  -i-  co  2  rrj  OH  rt  4^> ^3  4O3  O  3  O CD  rS CD  rt a3  CD  cO  §  a  CD  f£ S- rt  *J  33  O CD  H—»  1  4  U  ?  co  2  u  CD  O  3  CO 3  CD  rt rt S § ^ rt CD rt 3 rt 3 H—1 T 3 O CD . 3 43 60 S 1=1 3CD CD CO CD 43 o > CD O CO  O  ^>  Ui  1  43  a  53  rt  ~ § 42 § U 2  -tt  H—l  co  I ^ 13 U  I -• *ui  a, U .S  a  S3 . 3  S3  e  CD  60  •c -2 O c<a  5 >O -a .a ^ 3  a  a" "3 42 a u .3 « a <60 >  .<5u, ^ <+H OH tH_|  O  -+-» %-  S ©  CD  > rt  3  Ui  §  OH  CJ  3 CO  CD CD  43 £ -3 o Q  43  53 x3 ft, rt  3  U i  OH  2  a. .a o c #  'cn  •t-1 C+H  rt  «N  co  o  c« rt  60  U  O  43  e rt  ..  CO  tt  43  CD  _ + S  §  <N —1 r~ vo  .* rt rt a X  ON  vo  a , Q -a W Ui  CD  O  60  a  CO  rt CD T3  13  43  CD  CO  to  u< O  O  CD  O  OH  CD  O  o  3  PH  X  W  OH  43  CD  H-I  <  ui  co  CD  O  3  .O  co  T 3  CD O  Q  rt  <-<  3  i n  CD O  60  T 3  60  a  _7 rt  o ti o  OH OH  >  u  CD  3  CD  43  60  3 CO  CD tt -a oc rt Ui  " co  3  CD CD CD O  < Q  CO  rt  60 rt 3  rt  -a  O  Ui  .O  rt  o  CD  QH  O  rt CD  O  OH  S 2 OH a tt  CO  T3  .a  CD  o  43  CD CD  O  O  O  CD 4 3 CD  O  UI DH  U  Q  o 3 _o  •*' —» rt C O  u  CD  u  CD >  3  CD  CD  •a  3 3  Ui  _3  CD OH  o  o  t-1  r--  60 CD  >  CO  rt  60  s  3  O  43  3  H  "rt  > 43  60 3 3  CD  CD  3 3  Ui  CD  a CD o  3  OH O  o 00  CD  >  3  3 CO  O  43  H  Q  13 >  60 3  fc  3  o H  43  -1  OH  t  S  co rt  t  ^ co  O 3 „  CD c o CD <+H CD O O  1  3  3  60 O  3  60  0  CD •*->  co  CD >  60  o  .  ti  3  t3  <u S24 3  O  Ul  co  CD  •e  Ui  rt H  § 43  CD —1  OH  co CD CD T 3 O --^  Q  CD  OH  OH  ^§ a 2  CD  60  CO  CD •(->  a o CO  rt  CO  c/5  t3 3 13 >  a  rt CD  rt  CD  60  T3  CO  co  2  CD  CD  CD >  CD  CD  43  2  rt  CD  43  <D CD  CD  Q  Q  CD  <D  OH ^  H-I  3  rt  C  u  '.4—>  £  O  O rt O  PQ  CD  cd  s rt" art O 60 O OH (3 & O rt o  CD  |£  CD  CD 4 3 rt O CD . 3 T 3 CD T3 c o CD CD co  '> rt 43  33  Managerial Creativity 72  As can be seen from Table 6, a substantial percentage of participants listed the expected behaviours in their behavioural descriptions. In looking at these percentages, it must be kept in mind that the participants were writing freehand descriptions of the behaviours they expected from managers inhabiting various cells in the model; they were not checking off behaviours from a provided list.  With this context in mind, the percentages of participants who included the  expected behaviours in their behavioural descriptions is fairly impressive. The labels provided by the participants for the various cells in the model were interesting, ranging from the plain (e.g., Leader, Follower) to the metaphorical (e.g., High Speed Motorcycle Accident, Boat Anchor), but were of little use because they lacked consistency. It should be noted, however, that few of the participants differentiated between ideas for incremental change and ideas for radical change; most participants simply wrote about ideas for change, in general.  This simplification is not surprising given that the distinction between  incremental and radical change was not given to the participants before they wrote their behavioural descriptions. It seems logical that for creative management types that are high in both divergent thinking and openness, or low in both divergent thinking and openness, one would not think to distinguish between incremental and radical change ideas because the management type in question either is proposing all kinds of ideas for change or is not proposing any ideas for change at all. It is when the management type in question is high in divergent thinking, but low in openness that the distinction between incremental and radical change becomes an issue. Given that the participants were not given the distinction between incremental and radical change, it is gratifying to see that a number of them, nonetheless, did suggest that the two management types who are high in divergent thinking but low in openness would propose ideas for incremental change, but not for radical change. Even amongst participants who made this distinction, however, there were differences in the process they hypothesized.  Some of the  participants suggested that managers high in divergent thinking but low in openness would only generate incremental ideas, while other participants suggested that such managers would generate  Managerial Creativity 73  both incremental and radical ideas, but would immediately throw out the radical ideas, and take to the proposal stage, only the incremental ideas.  This process difference contained in the  participant's behavioural descriptions raises an interesting question: does censoring takes place in the preconscious mind (before ideas are generated) or in the conscious mind (after ideas have been generated). In the Creative Management Model, this issue has been avoided by talking, not about the generating of ideas, but rather about the proposing of ideas. This tack also makes sense given that the generation of ideas, unlike the proposal of ideas, is not observable. For the two management types high in divergent thinking but low in openness, an additional 28% and 44% of the participants, respectively, hypothesized that the managers inhabiting these cells would propose ideas for change, but these participants failed to clarify the radicalness of the proposals. These additional percentages are, thus, not included in Table 6 because they do not clearly match the expected behaviour for these management types which includes the proposal of incremental changes only. percentages  It seems likely that these additional  came from participants who saw the words "high divergent thinking" and  automatically wrote down that managers having this ability would generate a lot of ideas, without considering what impact low openness might have on the idea-generation process. Another issue that was clear from the participants' behavioural descriptions for the cells of the Creative Management Model was that a low level of ability on one of the cognitive dimensions (divergent thinking or evaluative thinking) could lead to two different kinds of behaviour: deficient behaviour or compensatory behaviour. In deficient behaviour, the manager suffers from a lack of ideas (low divergent thinking) or poor decisions (low evaluative thinking). In compensatory behaviour, the manager, aware of his/her deficits,  asks  others with  complementary skills, to provide ideas or evaluate existing ideas. It is interesting to note that none of the participants suggested that a manager would use compensatory strategies to deal with low openness. This lack of compensatory strategies for low openness makes sense since by using compensatory strategies (e.g., having someone higher in openness make the decisions), a  Managerial Creativity 74  manager low in openness would be deliberately putting him/herself into a situation in which s/he is uncomfortable. STUDY 3:  RETRANSLATION METHOD  Participants Participants were 15 incumbent managers (6 women, 9 men) from B C T E L .  These  participant managers had a mean of 14 years of management experience (range was 2 to 25 years). Procedure Participants were given this author's descriptions of the eight creative management types, and were asked to do two things. First, for each of the eight descriptions, participants were asked to write down the combination of high and low divergent thinking, evaluative thinking, and openness that could be expected to lead to such behaviour (this first activity was analogous to the retranslation step used in developing behaviourally-anchored rating scales). Second, for each of the eight descriptions that were recognizable, participants were asked to write down the initials of a person who fit the description (with the stipulation that each description had to be exemplified by a different person) (see Appendix G). RESULTS  For each creative management type, the percentage of participants who, after reading the behavioural description, listed the expected combination of traits is given in Table 7.  The  percentage of participants who were able to identify a manager who fit the behavioural description for each creative management type is also given in Table 7.  Managerial Creativity 75  Table 7 Retranslation Results: Percentage of Study 3 Participants Identifying the Expected Trait Configuration and Percentage of Study 3 Participants Identifying a Real Manager for Each Creative Management Type  Creative Management Type  Expected Trait Configuration  % of Participants Who Listed the Expected Trait Configuration  % of Participants Who Identified a Manager Fitting the Behavioural Description  Global Change Agent  High Divergent Thinking High Openness High Evaluative Thinking  100  100  Global Idea Generator  High Divergent Thinking High Openness Low Evaluative Thinking  80  67  Incremental Change  High Divergent Thinking Low Openness High Evaluative Thinking  33  80  High Divergent Thinking  67  73  93  100  93  87  80  87  100  67  Agent Incremental Idea Generator Change Facilitator  Low Openness Low Evaluative Thinking Low Divergent Thinking High Openness High Evaluative Thinking  Change Enthusiast  Low Divergent Thinking High Openness Low Evaluative Thinking  Change Critic  Low Divergent Thinking Low Openness High Evaluative Thinking  Change Inhibitor  Low Divergent Thinking Low Openness Low Evaluative Thinking  Managerial Creativity 76  As can be seen from Table 7, the participants had a fairly good hit rate in terms of listing the expected combination of traits for a given behavioural description. The participants clearly diverged from the expected combination of traits most often for the Incremental Change Agents and Incremental Idea Generators. The issue here was whether a person who generates ideas for incremental change, but not for radical change, is high or low in divergent thinking ability. Although the expected response was that such a person would be high in divergent thinking ability, but low in openness, the participants were neither unanimous nor consistent in their views on this matter. Although all of the participants agreed that the Incremental Change Agent was low in openness, and all but one of the participants agreed that the Incremental Idea Generator was low in openness, 60% of the participants attributed low divergent thinking ability to the Incremental Change Agent, and 33% of the participants attributed low divergent thinking ability to the Incremental Idea Generator.  Furthermore, given that the only difference between the  Incremental Change Agent and the Incremental Idea Generator is in their respective ability or inability to evaluate the feasibility of ideas, it is interesting that fully 53% of the participants gave the Incremental Change Agents and Incremental Idea Generators opposite ratings for divergent thinking ability. In summary, aside from participants' reasonable conceptual difficulty in deciding whether someone who generates ideas for incremental change, but not for radical change, is high or low in divergent thinking ability, participants otherwise generally made trait assignments for the given behavioural descriptions that were consistent with the Creative Management Model. For each given behavioural description, moreover, a majority of the participants were able to identify an actual manager whom they felt fit that description.  Managerial Creativity 77  STUDY 4: MANAGERS'  CONCEPTIONS  OF  CREATIVITY  METHOD  Participants The first sample consisted of 22 incumbent managers (14 women, 8 men) from a variety of organizations. The second sample consisted of 18 academics (6 women, 12 men; 10 faculty, 8 graduate students) from the areas of organizational behaviour, industrial/organizational psychology, and individual-differences psychology. Procedure Using a combination of the procedures presented by Latham and his colleagues (Latham & Wexley, 1977, 1981; Latham, Fay, & Saari, 1979) for developing Behavioural Observation Scales (BOS), a type of scale used in performance appraisal, and the act frequency approach discussed by Buss and Craik (1980, 1981, 1983) as a means of describing dispositional categories in personality research, the 22 managers from Sample 1 developed lists of behaviours that they had observed in creative managers and behaviours that they had observed in noncreative managers.  Specifically, participant managers were each given the definition of a  creative manager adopted earlier in this thesis (see page 9) and were asked to think of two managers they knew who were highly creative and two managers they knew who were uncreative. The participant managers were then asked to write down the critical incidents (Smith & Kendall, 1963) or behavioural acts that they had observed in these creative (uncreative) managers that were indicative of their creativity (lack of creativity) (see Appendix H). The participant managers wrote their behavioural incidents for both creative and uncreative managers under two headings: desirable behaviours and undesirable behaviours.  No instructions were  given, however, about what proportion of the incidents written should be desirable or undesirable. This decision was left to the participants.  Managerial Creativity 78  In total, the participants generated 170 desirable creative behaviours, 75 undesirable creative behaviours, 99 desirable uncreative behaviours, and 116 undesirable uncreative behaviours.  These 460 critical incidents were organized into conceptual groupings such that  each group of items shared a common theme.  Conceptual groupings—and the items they  contained—were discarded if they were contradictory either in the sense that both the conceptual grouping and its opposite both appeared to be descriptive of the creative (or uncreative manager) or if the conceptual grouping itself appeared to be descriptive of both creative and uncreative managers. The following conceptual groupings were retained for creative managers: generates ideas; challenges the status quo; takes risks; bends the rules; sells ideas; neglects routine; is enthusiastic;  and is unrealistic.  For uncreative managers, the conceptual groupings retained  were: follows rules and procedures; is methodical; is detail-oriented; change; is controlling;  and is critical.  is predictable;  is slow to  Finally, the critical incidents within each conceptual  grouping were edited (and reduced) by eliminating grammatical errors, redundancies, vague statements, and non-behavioural statements (e.g., adjectives).  In the end, one to three critical  incidents were retained within each conceptual grouping. The resulting 24 critical incidents were compiled into a questionnaire that was administered to the 18 faculty and graduate students from Sample 2. For each of the 24 critical incidents, the Sample 2 participants were asked to indicate in a binary (yes/no) format whether each of the following six individual difference factors from the creative management model was a significant determinant of the behaviour: (1) divergent thinking ability (or lack thereof); (2) evaluative thinking ability (or lack thereof); (3) openness to change (or lack thereof); (4) openness to risk (or lack thereof); (5) openness to ambiguity (or lack thereof); and (6) work motivation (or lack thereof).  Openness was broken into three separate  facets in order to allow participants to state that some subset of the three openness facets was a significant determinant of the behaviour in question without having to indicate that the whole openness dimension was or was not a significant determinant of the behaviour. Finally, for each  Managerial Creativity 79  critical incident there was be a blank space provided where participants could write in any other individual difference factor that they thought was a significant determinant of the behaviour (see Appendix I). RESULTS For each of the six listed individual-difference factors, the percentage of critical incident behaviours for which it was thought to be an important determinant was calculated for each participant (e.g., Participant A rated divergent thinking as an important determinant for 45% of the critical incidents). Then, for each of the six listed individual-difference factors, the average percentage across participants was calculated, and a 95% confidence interval was set around that average percentage. These average percentages and confidence intervals appear in Table 8. As can be seen from Table 8, the confidence interval did not cross zero for any of the individualdifference factors, indicating that, in the opinions of the academics in Sample 2, all of the factors play a non-trivial role in creative behaviour as it is conceptualized by managers. Finally, the additional individual-difference factors that were written in the blank spaces on the questionnaire were qualitatively analyzed to see if any consistent pictures emerged of potentially important factor(s) that were missing from the proposed Creative Management Model. Eight of the participants wrote additional individual-difference factor(s) for at least one of the 24 critical incidents.  However, there was little consistency either within or between  participants in terms of the additional factors mentioned. For example, no additional factor was mentioned by more than two participants; no additional factor was attributed to more than two of the critical incidents (either by the same or different participants); and there were only three critical incidents for which two people wrote the same additional factor. The additional factors that were mentioned twice (either by the same or different participants, and either for the same or different  critical  incidents  were:  conventionalism,  dogmatism,  agreeableness, authoritarianism, need for power, and conscientiousness.  negativism/optimism, Since behaviour is  complex and multi-determined, it is expected that behavioural incidents will be influenced by a  Managerial Creativity 80  Table 8 Significance of Various Individual-Difference Factors for Creative Behaviour Average Percentage of Critical Incidents for Which the Factor Was Considered to be a Significant Determinant  95% Confidence Interval Around the Average Percentage  Divergent Thinking  42  33 -51  Evaluative Thinking  40  29 -51  Openness to Change  56  48 -63  Openness to Risk  54  42 -65  Openness to Ambiguity  54  44 -63  Work Motivation  33  24 -41  Individual Differences Factor  Managerial Creativity 81  variety of traits and abilities; thus, it is no surprise that participants were able to come up with additional  individual-difference  factors  that influenced  the behavioural incidents  being  considered. The lack of any consistent trends among these additional factors suggested that there were no glaring omissions in terms of the individual-difference factors included in the Creative Management Model.  Managerial Creativity 82  CHAPTER 5 EMPIRICAL VALIDITY OF T H E CREATIVE M A N A G E M E N T M O D E L STUDY 5: PREDICTING  CREATIVITY  IN  MANAGERS  METHOD Participants  and Settings  The sample consisted of 223 incumbent managers (147 women, 76 men) from 12 medium to large Canadian organizations, with 173 managers from public sector organizations (Regina Health District, Simon Fraser Health Region, Vancouver General Hospital, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, British Columbia Institute of Technology, B C Hydro) and 50 managers from private sector organizations (BC T E L , Whistler/Blackcomb, Molson Breweries, MacMillan Bloedel, Xerox). The age range for the participants was 24 to 66, with a mean of 41.8 for women and 42.3 for men. The participants had between 3 months and 32 years of supervisory/management experience, with a mean of 10.6 years for women and 12.9 years for men. In exchange for their participation, managers received a UBC-crested pen and a feedback report that outlined their standing, relative to other participants, on Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness, and Work Motivation (see Appendix J). The feedback report also provided some developmental comments about how an individual could improve on—or compensate for—an underdeveloped dimension. For companies with nine or more participants, the company also received a similar summary feedback report that outlined the average standing of its managers on the four creativity dimensions, relative to the managers from outside the company. Summary reports were not provided to companies with fewer than nine participants, in order to protect the privacy of the individual participants.  Managerial Creativity 83  Procedure The assessment battery, described in a following section, was administered to participants in single 2-hour group sessions conducted in the summer of 1997.  At the testing session,  participants were asked to provide the name of the supervisor within their company who was most familiar with their work. During the summer and fall of 1997, concurrent criterion data were obtained on 214 of the participants from these nominated supervisors. The supervisors who provided the criterion data had no knowledge of the assessment battery results.  As a token of  appreciation for their contribution to the study, the supervisors who provided the criterion data were given a small gift in the form of a pen or a business-card holder. Assessment Battery Measures: Choice and Development Assessment  was  carried out  in two  domains:  (a)  cognitive  abilities,  and  (b)  personality/motivational traits. Within the cognitive domain, three abilities were assessed: (a) divergent  thinking, (b)  evaluative  thinking, and (c)  general  intelligence.  Within  the  personality/motivational domain, three traits were assessed: (a) openness, (b) work motivation, and (c) adaption-innovation. Rather than discussing the measures sequentially, by domain, they will be discussed in the order in which they were developed and added to the assessment battery. DIVERGENT  THINKING  As a cognitive ability, divergent thinking was measured in this study because it is one of the individual difference dimensions specified in the Creative Management Model. The present study utilized a measure of divergent thinking that was developed by Dr. Ralph Hakstian and the present author particularly for use in industrial settings. An account of the development of this divergent thinking measure follows. Six tests of divergent thinking, each having seven parts, were developed in the summers of 1993 and 1994. After pilot testing, the best four parts of each test were retained and broken into two parallel forms (Form A and Form B), each having two parts per test, and the resulting battery  Managerial Creativity 84  was called the Innovative and Divergent Elaboration Aptitudes (I.D.E.A.) Battery. Form A and Form B of the I.D.E.A. Battery were administered to 231 undergraduate students; 137 of these students were re-administered the tests after a three-week interval. The participants' end-of-year introductory psychology grades were also collected. The best three tests in terms of validity (for predicting grades) and reliability results were identified, and Form A of these three tests was used in the present study (see Appendix K). For ease of reference, the three tests used in the present study will be called the Divergent Thinking Composite. The three tests included in the Divergent Thinking Composite are: (a) The Associations Exercise: Modeled after Mednick and Mednick's (1967) Remote Associates Test, the Associations exercise gives examinees three words (e.g., Sun—Heart— Fire), and asks them to find a fourth word that is associated with each of the other three (in the example above, the answer would be Burn). In each of the two parts of Form A of the Associations exercise, examinees are presented with 14 sets of three words, for which they are to find a fourth associated word. There is only one correct answer for each word set, and examinees are given four minutes in which to solve as many of the 14 word sets as they can. Examinees get one point for each word set correctly solved. The Associations exercise is thought to be relevant to managerial creative thinking because it appears to measure both the ability to diverge (in coming up with multiple associations to the words given in each problem) and the ability to converge upon the correct association. Thus, the Associations exercise appears to get at both the judgment component of the problem-solving process and the idea-generation component. Although the Associations exercise is most appropriately classified as an associational measure, it is being categorized with the other two divergent thinking measures because it has a divergent aspect. (b) The Similarities Exercise: In each of the two parts of Form A of the Similarities exercise, examinees are presented with two disparate objects (e.g., Book and Car) and are given three minutes in which to write down as many ways as they can think of in which the two objects  Managerial Creativity 85  are similar. Examinees get one point for each response that conforms with the instructions for the Similarities exercise. This is a measure of fluency that gets at examinees' ability to use analogical thinking, a characteristic attributed to creative people (Perkins, 1981). (c) The Brainstorming Exercise: In each of the two parts of Form A of the Brainstorming exercise, examinees are presented with a typical management problem (e.g., reducing accidents among hourly workers), and are given three minutes in which to write down as many solutions as they can think of for dealing with that management problem. Examinees get one point for each response that conforms with the instructions for the Brainstorming exercise. This is a measure of fluency which uses real-world questions, a type of question identified by Okuda, Runco and Berger (1991) as particularly effective. We note that the Similarities and Brainstorming exercises are both scored for fluency, but not for flexibility, originality, or elaboration. This scoring decision was made because flexibility, originality, and elaboration have all been shown to have dubious reliability and differentiation from fluency (Hocevar, 1979a; Runco, 1986c).  Moreover, if these tests are to be used for  selection in the future, they require a simple scoring system that can be used by in-house clerical staff with minimal training. Although reliability and validity results exist for both Form A and Form B of the entire I.D.E.A. Battery, the reliability and validity of the Divergent Thinking Composite used in the present study (i.e., Form A of the Associations, Similarities, and Brainstorming exercises) will, alone, be considered. From the 231 undergraduate students who took Forms A and B of the I.D.E.A. Battery, various reliability estimates were obtained for the Divergent Thinking Composite: (1) a length-corrected, split-half, internal consistency estimate was obtained from the entire sample; (2) a test-retest stability estimate was obtained from the 137 students who were retested on the I.D.E.A. Battery three weeks later; (3) an alternate forms reliability estimate was obtained from the 213 students who completed both forms of the I.D.E.A. Battery at Time 1; and (4) an alternate forms reliability estimate with a time lag was obtained from the 133 students who  Managerial Creativity 86  completed Form A of the I.D.E.A. Battery at Time 1 and Form B of the I.D.E.A. Battery at Time 2.  Additionally, inter-rater reliability estimates (standard intraclass correlation coefficients),  representing the reliability of a single rating, were assessed from the Time 1 test scores arrived at by three scorers for 104 randomly selected participants.  A l l of these reliability estimates are  reported in Table 9. Taking split-half reliability, test-retest stability, and alternate forms reliability into consideration, the Divergent Thinking Composite can be characterized as having a reliability of about .83. This reliability is comparable with that of other divergent thinking tests. For example, using data from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, McCrae, Arenberg, and Costa (1987) found that six tests of divergent thinking developed by Guilford and his associates had a mean stepped-up split half reliability of .83, a mean test-retest stability of .70 (with a longer sixyear retest interval), and a mean inter-rater reliability of .98 for the four tests comparable in scoring practices to the Divergent Thinking Composite. As for validity, in the 123 undergraduate students for whom grades were available, the Divergent Thinking Composite correlated .28 with introductory psychology grades. It should be kept in mind that academic achievement is not what the Divergent Thinking Composite was developed to predict, but this correlation does offer some glimpse at the predictive ability of the Divergent Thinking Composite in the cognitive domain. WORK MOTIVATION  AND  3  OPENNESS  As personality/motivational traits, work motivation and openness were measured in this study because they are two of the individual difference dimensions specified in the Creative Management Model. Measures of these two traits were developed specifically for this study; an overview of the development of these measures is provided below.  A significance level is not given for this correlation because the correlation was optimized in this sample through the test-selection process (i.e., the retention of the three best tests); thus, standard tabled significance levels do not apply to this correlation. However, the correlation is given in order to give the reader a sense of the relative magnitude of the correlation. 3  Managerial Creativity 87  Table 9 Reliability Results: Internal Consistency, Test-Retest Stability, Alternate Forms Reliability, Inter-Rater Reliability for the Divergent Thinking Composite  Type of Reliability  Conceptualization of Reliability  and  Sample Size  Reliability Estimate  Stepped-Up Split-Half Reliability*  Internal Consistency  231  .82  Test-Retest Stability  Temporal Stability  137  .77  Alternate Forms Reliability  Form Equivalence  213  .89  Alternate Forms Reliability With a Time Lag  Form Equivalence and Temporal Stability  133  .73  Inter-Rater Reliability^  Rater Equivalence  104  Associations: 1.00 Similarities: .967 Brainstorming: .993  3  a  T h e split-half reliability estimate was stepped up by the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula to indicate the reliability of the entire six-part battery.  b Given the inter-rater reliabilities of the constituent tests, and the empirical intercorrelations among the tests, it can be inferred that the inter-rater reliability a single rating of the entire Divergent Thinking Composite would be greater than .990. c  c  Note that the inter-rater reliability for the Associations exercise is unity because it is an objective test.  Managerial Creativity 88  Personality items representing behaviours, attitudes, beliefs and preferences were written by the present author and Kimberly Barchard for four content domains: work motivation (132 items); openness to change (96 items); openness to risk (68 items); and openness to ambiguity (74 items).  An attempt was made to write socially desirable and nondesirable items for both  poles of each concept (e.g., socially desirable open to change, socially desirable not open to change, socially undesirable open to change, and socially undesirable not open to change). These items were put into a questionnaire, along with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). The order of the items was randomized and a 5-point (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) response format was used. The questionnaire was then administered to 153 undergraduate students who had already taken the Divergent Thinking Composite. Another group of 130 education undergraduate students took the same questionnaire, but half of them were instructed to fill it out honestly, while the other half were instructed to imagine that they were applying for a management job and to "fake good" in order to impress their potential employer. Finally a group of 22 graduate students from several university departments rated how socially desirable it would be for a person in a supervisory or management position to endorse each item.  The social desirability scale on which the ratings were made ranged from 1  (Extremely Undesirable) to 9 (Extremely Desirable).  In all three samples, the order in which the  items appeared was counterbalanced. The end goal was to create internally-consistent scales for work motivation and openness that had approximately equal numbers of desirable and undesirable items from either pole of the scale (e.g., an equal number of desirable high-motivation items, undesirable high-motivation items, desirable low-motivation items, and undesirable low-motivation items).  Since the  intention was to develop a self-report instrument that may be used for selection purposes, it was important to balance the number of items from the positive and negative poles of the scale so that people could not obtain a high score by virtue of an acquiescent response style.  It was also  important to balance the scale for social desirability so that people could not obtain a high score  Managerial Creativity 89  through either of the two types of socially desirable responding—self-deception and impression management (Paulhus, 1984). Furthermore, an attempt was made to select for inclusion in the Openness scale, items that were uncorrelated with divergent thinking (as measured by the Divergent Thinking Composite); the goal here was to create measures of divergent thinking and openness that were as orthogonal as possible in order to minimize the shared variance between the cognitive and affective domains. If shared variance were minimized, predictive efficiency would be maximized, and the chance of having cells with low frequency in the Creative Management Model would be reduced. This final stipulation was well-warranted given the finding that the openness to experience scales from both the N E O Personality Inventory and the Big Five Inventory correlate positively with the Torrance Tests of Divergent Thinking (see King et al., 1996; McCrae, 1987). Thus, items were selected for inclusion in the Openness scale on the basis of: (1) making a positive contribution to the internal consistency reliability of the scale (i.e., having a large corrected item-total correlation; (2) having a low correlation with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale; (3) having a moderate mean social desirability rating of between 3.0 and 7.0 (on the 9-point social desirability scale) and a small variance in social desirability ratings; (4) having a small difference in the mean responses of students who had responded honestly to the item and students who had "faked good" in responding to the item; and (5) having a low correlation with the Divergent Thinking Composite. In the end, 24 items were chosen for inclusion in the Openness scale (8 openness to change items, 8 openness to risk items, and 8 openness to ambiguity items). In the development sample, the overall 24-item scale had an alpha reliability of .87 and a mean social desirability rating of 5.07 (on a 9-point scale), correlated .02 with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, and  Managerial Creativity 90  correlated .04 with the Divergent Thinking Composite. The 24 items are presented in Appendix 4  L. On the other hand, while some attention was given to selecting work motivation items that were uncorrelated with divergent thinking (as measured by the Divergent Thinking Composite) or openness to change, risk and ambiguity (as measured by the newly developed Openness scale), the need to orthogonalize the Work Motivation scale seemed less urgent because (a) it was hypothesized that the work motivation items would not correlate particularly highly with either divergent thinking or openness, and (b) work motivation is not used in defining the eight cells of the Creative Management Model. Thus, items were selected for inclusion in the Work Motivation scale mainly on the basis of: (1) making a positive contribution to the internal consistency reliability of the scale (i.e., having a large corrected item-total correlation); (2) having a low correlation with the MarloweCrowne Social Desirability Scale; (3) having a moderate mean social desirability rating of between 3.0 and 7.0 (on the 9-point social desirability scale) and a small variance in social desirability ratings; and (4) having a small difference in the mean responses of students who had responded honestly to the item and students who had "faked good" in responding to the item. In the end, 20 items were chosen for inclusion in the Work Motivation Scale.  In the  development sample, the overall 20-item scale had an alpha reliability of .73, a mean social desirability rating of 5.08 (on a 9-point scale), a correlation of -.17 with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, a correlation of .11 with the Divergent Thinking Composite, and a correlation of .42 with the Openness Scale. These 20 items are presented in Appendix M . 5  Significance levels are not given for the correlations reported here because the correlations were optimized in this sample through the item-selection process; thus, standard tabled significance levels do not apply in this case. However, the correlations are given in order to give the reader a sense of the extent to which the item-selection process was successful.  4  Significance levels are not given for the correlations reported here because the correlations were optimized in this sample through the item-selection process; thus, standard tabled significance levels do not apply in this case. However, the correlations are given in order to give the reader a sense of the extent to which the item-selection process was successful. 5  Managerial Creativity 91  Because an artificial response consistency can develop when participants are faced with large numbers of items that get at a similar concept, it was deemed necessary to alternate the 44 items from the Work Motivation (20 items) and Openness (24 items) scales not only with each other, but also with filler items that measured other concepts.  Given that work motivation and  openness share similarities with the conscientiousness and openness to experience factors from the Big Five structure of personality, it was decided to write filler items related to the other three factors from the Big Five structure of personality (i.e., neuroticism, agreeableness).  extroversion,  and  In addition, it was considered worthwhile to keep a measure of social  desirability in the new personality questionnaire; because of its brevity and purposive orientation toward motivational distortion (the main concern in a selection instrument) rather than selfdeception, the Impression Management scale from the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1989, 1991) was used as the measure of social desirability. Thus, the items from the Work Motivation scale and the Openness scale were put into a questionnaire in which they were alternated with items from the Impression Management Scale of the BIDR and filler items written by the present author to tap into neuroticism, extroversion, and agreeableness.  The final 124-item questionnaire was called the C R A M , which stands for  Change, Risk, Ambiguity and Motivation (see Appendix N). The C R A M was administered to 319 undergraduate students in conjunction with the Divergent Thinking Composite. In this sample, the Openness scale had an internal consistency reliability of .71, correlated .-.005 (p>.75) with the Impression Management Scale from the BIDR, and correlated .10 (p>.05) with the Divergent Thinking Composite.  The Work  Motivation scale had an internal consistency reliability of .62, correlated .07 (p>.10) with the Impression Management Scale from the BIDR, and correlated .18 (p<.005) with the Divergent Thinking Composite. The Openness and Work Motivation scales correlated .44 (p<.001) with each other. The C R A M was also administered to 171 undergraduate psychology students on two occasions, with a two-week interval between administrations. On the second occasion, 143 of  Managerial Creativity 92  the participants also completed the Openness to Experience scale from the N E O Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). The Openness scale had a retest stability of .89, and the Work Motivation scale had a retest stability of .74. As expected, there was a significant correlation of .42 (p<.001) between the Openness scale and the N E O PI-R Openness to Experience scale; the moderate nature of this correlation is to be expected given that the two scales are measuring different facets of openness to experience. Taking both internal consistency and test-retest stability estimates of reliability into account, the Openness scale can be characterized as having a reliability of about .80, and the Work Motivation Scale can be characterized as having a reliability of about . 68. When these values are compared with those of other self-report-based personality scales, they compare favourably. For example, the 20 scales of the revised California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1987) have a mean internal consistency reliability of .67 (college students, both genders), and a mean test-retest stability of .66 (college students, both genders, but a longer 1-year retest interval) (Gough, 1987, p. 32). EVALUATIVE  THINKING  As a cognitive ability, evaluative thinking was measured in this study because it is one of the individual difference dimensions specified in the Creative Management Model. A measure of evaluative thinking was developed specifically for this study, and an account of the testdevelopment process is outlined in what follows. Three tests of evaluative thinking were developed by the present author with the help of Kimberly Barchard, Roger Tweed, and Allison MacLeod. A fourth test of evaluative thinking was adapted from Part B of the Supervisory Profile Inventory (SPI; Hakstian, Woolley, Woolsey, & Kryger, 1991). The three tests developed by the author and her colleagues are as follows: (a) Flaws: Modeled after the Commonsense Judgment I test (Guilford & Hoepfner, 1971), each question in the Flaws exercise gives examinees a problem that someone is facing, and a plan  Managerial Creativity 9 3  for dealing with that problem. Five flaws with the plan are then listed, and the examinee must choose the two most important flaws. (b) Merits: The Merits exercise is the counterpart of the Flaws exercise. Each question in the Merits exercise gives examinees a problem that someone is facing, and a plan for dealing with that problem. Five merits of the plan are then listed, and the examinee must choose the two most important merits. (c) Information:  Modeled after the Important Facts test (Guilford & Hoepfner, 1971), the  Information exercise gives examinees a decision that someone must make. Five pieces of information that are available to the decision-maker are then listed, and the examinee must choose the two most important pieces of information. The fourth test which was adapted from Part B of the Supervisory Profile Inventory is as follows: (d) Supervisory Practices: The Supervisory Practices exercise gives examinees an issue that a supervisor is facing. Five courses of action for dealing with the issue are then listed, and the examinee must choose the two most effective courses of action. In developing the Flaws exercise, 21 scenarios were developed, each with a list of between 6 and 20 potential flaws. These scenarios were administered to 24 faculty and graduate students in the Department of Psychology and the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration; their task was to rate each listed flaw for importance on a scale which ranged from 1 (Not At All Important: Is irrelevant to the plan, will never happen, or is a completely insignificant  outcome  of the plan) to 9 (Very Important: Follows from the plan, is central to the plan, is likely to happen, and is a serious or costly consequence of the plan).  For each flaw, the mean and  standard deviation of these importance ratings were calculated, and where possible, five flaws were retained for each scenario such that there was a general consensus among the raters that two of the flaws were more important than the other three. Seven of the scenarios had to be discarded  Managerial Creativity 94  because there were not two flaws that were clearly more important than three of the other flaws. This left 14 scenarios in the Flaws exercise. In developing the Merits exercise, 22 scenarios were developed, each with a list of between 7 and 19 potential merits. These scenarios were administered to 25 faculty and graduate students in the Department of Psychology and the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration; their task was to rate each listed merit for importance on a scale which ranged from 1 (Not At All Important: Is irrelevant to the plan, will never happen, or is a completely insignificant  outcome  of the plan) to 9 (Very Important: Follows from the plan, is likely to happen, and is a valuable or beneficial consequence of the plan).  For each merit, the mean and standard deviation of these  importance ratings were calculated, and where possible five merits were retained for each scenario such that there was a general consensus among the raters that two of the merits were more important than the other three. Six of the scenarios had to be discarded because there were not two merits that were clearly more important than three of the other merits.  This left 16  scenarios in the Merits exercise. In developing the Information exercise, 26 scenarios were developed, each with a list of between 14 and 27 pieces of potentially useful information. Because it was apparent that certain pieces of information became more or less important in the context of other pieces of information, it was decided that the five pieces of information that might make up a multiple choice item should be predetermined, and the raters should rate only those five pieces of information. To increase the chances of finding the right pattern of high and low importance ratings for a scenario, two sets of five potentially useful pieces of information (set A and set B) were chosen for each scenario. Form A of the scenarios were administered to 23 faculty and graduate students, and Form B of the scenarios were administered to 26 faculty and graduate students in the Department of Psychology and the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration; their task was to rate each listed piece of information for importance on a scale which ranged from 1 (Not At All Important: This is an irrelevant piece of information.  It will not  Managerial Creativity 95  improve the quality of the decision) to 9 (Very Important: This is an essential piece of information.  A good decision cannot be made without this information).  For each piece of  information, the mean and standard deviation of these importance ratings were calculated, and for each scenario, one information set (A or B) was retained if possible. In order to be retained, an information set had to have produced a general consensus among the raters that two of the pieces of information within the set were more important than the other three. If both of the information sets written for a scenario met this standard for retention, only one of the two sets was retained. Five of the scenarios had to be discarded because neither Information Set A nor Information Set B met the standard for retention.  This left 21 scenarios in the Information  exercise. In developing the Supervisory Practices exercise, 22 scenarios were taken from Part B of the Supervisory Profile Inventory, each with a list of 5 courses of action. These scenarios were administered to 21 managers (4 women, 17 men) with an average of 17.3 years of management experience (range 1 to 31 years). Their task was to rate the extent to which a highly effective manager would choose each course of action on a scale that ranged from 1 (Almost Always) to 4 (Almost Never).  The managers were also asked to write in their own ideas about the best  alternative response and the worst alternative response to each scenario.  For each course of  action, the mean and standard deviation of these frequency ratings were calculated, and scenarios were retained for which there was a general consensus among the raters that two of the courses of action would be chosen by a highly effective manager more often than the other three. For a few of the scenarios that did not meet the criteria for retention because one course of action did not fit the desired pattern, a replacement course of action was taken from the list of best and worst alternative courses of action that had been written by the raters. Despite this provision, eight of the scenarios had to be discarded because they could not be easily adapted to fit the pattern that two of the courses of action would clearly be displayed by highly effective managers more often than the other three. This left 14 scenarios in the Supervisory Practices exercise.  Managerial Creativity 96  The four evaluative thinking tests (Flaw, Merits, Information, and Supervisory Practices) were compiled into a booklet which was administered to 319 undergraduate students in conjunction with the Divergent Thinking Composite, and the C R A M .  End-of-year grades were  also collected on the same students. All four of the evaluative thinking tests were presented in multiple choice format, with no time limit, and the examinee could get up to 2 points per scenario or item, depending on whether both, one, or none of the options that s/he circled matched the two keyed options. The goal was to create a measure of evaluative thinking that shared as little variance as possible with the Divergent Thinking Composite and the Openness scale so that predictive efficiency would be maximized and the chance of having cells with low frequency in Creative Management Model would be minimized. Some degree of correlation between the Divergent Thinking Composite and the measure of evaluative thinking was considered unavoidable, given that both instruments would be measuring aspects of the cognitive domain that, to some extent, were related to general intelligence. Nevertheless, keeping the goal in mind, evaluative thinking scenarios were retained on the basis of: (1) having a large item reliability index (corrected itemtotal correlation x item standard deviation); (2) having a large item validity index (item correlation with introductory psychology grades x item standard deviation); (3) having a low correlation with the Divergent Thinking Composite; and (4) having a low correlation with the Openness scale from the C R A M . In the end, five scenarios were retained from the Flaws exercise, five scenarios were retained from the Merits exercise, six scenarios were retained from the Information exercise, and six scenarios were retained from the Supervisory Practices exercise.  These 22 multiple-choice  items were assembled into a booklet called the Evaluative Thinking Battery (see Appendix O). The battery had a length-corrected split-half internal consistency reliability of .76, correlated .15 with the Divergent Thinking Composite, correlated .003 with the Openness scale from the  Managerial Creativity 97  C R A M , and correlated .35 with introductory psychology grades.  6  The Evaluative Thinking  Battery was also administered to 164 undergraduate students on two occasions, with a two-week interval between administrations. It had a test-retest stability of .80. Taking internal consistency and test-retest stability into consideration, the Evaluative Thinking Battery can be characterized as having a reliability of about .78 in the development sample. This degree of reliability is comparable to the reliability of other cognitive measures. For example, the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser, 1980) has a reported length-corrected split-half internal consistency reliability of .80 (college freshmen), and a.test-retest stability of .73 (college students, but a longer three-month retest interval). It must be recalled, however, that all of the reliability data for the Evaluative Thinking Battery, coming as it did from the development sample, was maximized by the item-selection process and could be expected to drop somewhat in an alternative sample.  Since no student cross-validation data  exists, the reliability of the Evaluative Thinking Battery will be revisited in the present management sample; in fact the reliability of all of the newly-developed tests will be re-evaluated in the current management sample. GENERAL  INTELLIGENCE  As a cognitive ability, general intelligence was measured in this study for two reasons. First, on theoretical grounds, it was thought interesting to investigate whether the divergent thinking measure added useful variance to the prediction of managerial creativity over and above any shared variance with intelligence. The second reason for measuring IQ was pragmatic. One purpose of this study was to find a useful battery of measures for predicting managerial creativity, and IQ has been shown to predict creative activity in some areas such as science and writing (e.g., Runco, 1986a; Kogan & Pankove, 1974). Furthermore, although Runco (1986a)  Significance levels are not given for the correlations reported here because the correlations were optimized in this sample through the item-selection process; thus, standard tabled significance levels do not apply in this case. However, the correlations are given in order to give the reader a sense of the extent to which the item-selection process was successful. 6  Managerial Creativity 98  reported that the interaction of IQ and divergent thinking was not significantly related to creative performance, he suggested that a motivation x divergent thinking x IQ predictor might be effective.  Thus, IQ was seen as having the potential to add useful variance to the prediction of  managerial creativity. The present study used the Wonderlic Personnel Test, Form I (Wonderlic Personnel Test, 1992) as the measure of IQ. The Wonderlic Personnel Test has 50 open-ended verbal-, numerical-, and spatial-ability questions, and examinees are given 12 minutes in which to answer as many of these questions as they can. Examinees get 1 point for each question correctly answered within the 12 minutes. ADAPTION-INNOVATION As a personality/motivational trait, adaption-innovation was measured in this study in order to test the hypothesis that openness to experience is the major factor being measured by the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI; Kirton, 1976; 1987a).  The K A I is a 32-item  inventory that asks participants about the ease or difficulty of consistently maintaining an image such as "a person who enjoys detail work." Subjects respond to the items by marking their response on a 5-point scale anchored by the labels Very Hard, Hard, Easy, and Very Easy (the central point of the scale is not labeled). ORDER OF  ADMINISTRATION  When participants arrived for the creative management study, they were handed two copies of the consent form (one to sign and one to keep), and a background information sheet. When they were finished with these forms, they completed the KAI.  Next the two timed tests, the  Divergent Thinking Composite and the Wonderlic Personnel Test were administered, followed by the multiple choice Evaluative Thinking Battery. Finally, participants completed the C R A M . Criterion Performance  Measures  The purpose of this study was to validate two separate, but related, entities: (1) the Creative Management Model; and (2) the newly-developed predictor instruments. Thus, much attention  Managerial Creativity 99  was given to thorough measurement of criterion performance. In order to validate the Creative Management Model, criterion measurement of the specific behaviours hypothesized to be displayed by the various creative management types was necessary; for this purpose, specific (model-related) creativity criteria were developed. On the other hand, validation of the newlydeveloped predictor instruments could be achieved with a more general creativity criterion; thus, a more general creativity criterion was prepared. Finally, it was also thought useful to validate the predictor instruments against overall management performance in spheres not limited to creativity; thus, a general management performance criterion was assembled. SPECIFIC  CREATIVITY  CRITERIA  Using the critical incident technology developed by Latham and his colleagues (Latham & Wexley, 1977; 1981; Latham, Fay, & Saari, 1979) for developing behavioural observation scales (BOS), 15 incumbent managers were each given the definitions of the four types of behaviour specified in the creative management model: (1) supporting change initiatives; (2) accurately assessing the feasibility/practicality of ideas; (3) generating ideas for global change; and (4) generating ideas for incremental change. For the first two types of behaviour (supporting change initiatives and accurately assessing the feasibility/practicality of ideas), participants were asked to write three critical incidents to represent the low end of the behaviour and three critical incidents to represent the high end of the behaviour (see Appendix P).  For the second two types of  behaviour (generating ideas for global change and generating ideas for incremental change), participants were asked to write six critical incidents representing the high end of the behaviour only (because the meaning of the low end of these behaviours was unclear). The critical incidents generated for each of the four types of behaviour were edited (and reduced) by eliminating grammatical errors, redundancies, vague statements, and nonbehavioural statements. Across the four types of behaviour, 89 critical incidents were initially retained.  These 89 critical incidents were randomly ordered and put into a retranslation  questionnaire. For each critical incident in the questionnaire, respondents were asked to indicate  Managerial Creativity 100  which of the four behavioural types they thought the critical incident was meant to represent, and then to assign a rating to that critical incident [on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Very Low) to 5 (Very High)] to indicate the level of performance that the critical incident represented on that behavioural type (see Appendix Q).  Twenty graduate students and faculty members in the  Department of Psychology at the University of British Columbia responded to this questionnaire. For each critical incident, a frequency distribution was generated for its behavioural category assignments. Critical incidents were initially retained if at least 85% of the respondents correctly retranslated the critical incident to the behavioural category for which it was written. For each critical incident that survived this process, the mean and standard deviation of the ratings given to it were calculated, but these calculations were based only on the respondents who had correctly retranslated the item. Critical incidents were retained in the second (retranslation) phase if they had means that fell between 1 and 2 (if they were written to represent low performance) or between 4 and 5 (if they were written to represent high performance), and if their standard deviations were less than 0.6.  From among the critical incidents initially retained by this process, eight incidents were  ultimately retained for each behavioural type (four high performance and four low performance incidents for each of supporting change and assessing feasibility, and eight high performance incidents for each of global change and incremental change).  Thus, four 8-item specific  creativity criterion scales resulted; these criteria will henceforth be referred to as the Supporting Change, Assessing Feasibility, Global Change, and Incremental Change scales (see Appendix R for the item-content of these scales). GENERAL  CREATIVITY  CRITERION  The 24 behavioural incidents that were developed in Study 4—by having managers write down the behaviours they had observed in creative and uncreative colleagues—served as a general creativity criterion. This criterion will be referred to hereafter as the General Creativity scale (see Appendix R for the item content of this scale).  Managerial Creativity 101  GENERAL  MANAGEMENT  PERFORMANCE  CRITERION  The 36-item BOS scale designed by Hakstian et al. (1991) to measure 12 dimensions of general  management  Communication,  performance  Analysis, Judgment,  (Leadership,  Planning/Organizing/Control,  Decisiveness,  Work  Ethic,  Initiative,  Oral  Behaviour  Flexibility, Sensitivity, Performance Stability, and Written Communication) was used as a criterion measure of general management performance (see Hakstian et al., 1991, for a detailed description of the development and meaning of the individual dimensions).  This criterion will  henceforth be referred to as the General Management Performance scale (see Appendix R for the item content of this scale). WORK PERFORMANCE  QUESTIONNAIRE  The 32 items from the specific creativity criteria, 24 items from the general creativity criterion, and 36 items from the general performance criterion were assembled into a single 92item form by alternating the items from the various criterion scales. The instructions required respondents to indicate the extent to which each item described the manager being rated by circling a number on a scale ranging from 1 (Not At All) to 5 (To A Very Great Extent). The final criterion form was called the Work Performance Questionnaire (see Appendix S), and took most raters about 15 minutes to complete. DATA ANALYSIS  Scoring of Completed Exercises All of the cognitive and personality tests were scored by computer, except for the Divergent Thinking Composite and the Wonderlic Personnel Test. A l l scoring of the Divergent Thinking Composite and the Wonderlic Personnel Test was provided by a single trained scorer. Both the Divergent Thinking score and the Evaluative Thinking score resulted from a unitweighted linear combination of the raw scores from the various exercises contained in their respective batteries. The result of this simple unit-weighting of raw scores is that the exercises  Managerial Creativity 102  with higher variance will carry more weight in the linear combination. By standardizing the various exercise scores before summing them, the different exercises can be given equal weight in the linear combination. This equal-weighting scheme was not undertaken in this case for two reasons: (1) it was desirable to use these tests in the same way that they would be used in a selection setting, where there is a need for simple scoring procedures that can be undertaken by clerical staff; and (2) since the variances were fairly similar among the various tests in each battery (the ratio between the largest and smallest standard deviations was 1.19 in the Divergent Thinking Composite and 1.42 in the Evaluative Thinking Battery), there would be very little difference in the results achieved by using the raw-score linear combinations and the results achieved by using the standardized-score linear combinations.  As a check on this logic, the  correlations between the raw-score and standard-score linear combinations were computed, producing values greater than .99 for both Divergent Thinking and Evaluative Thinking. Deletion of Cases Two participants were dropped from the analyses because they indicated that English was not the language in which they were most fluent.  In developing the Divergent Thinking  Composite, it was found that the mean on the divergent thinking exercises for people with English as a second language was about half that of people with English as a first language. Since there were only two participants in the present study who felt less than completely comfortable with English, it was decided to drop them from the analyses, rather than try to statistically compensate for any English deficiency.  7  Treatment of Industry Cohorts in the Sample The participants came from a variety of quite different industries.  To prevent between-  groups correlation (due to small but significant industry group mean differences in criterion scores) from confounding the results, all predictor and criterion scores were standardized within For the two participants who indicated that English was not the language in which they were most fluent, their personal feedback reports were accompanied by a letter that explained that their results should be interpreted with caution due to the potential language effect on test scores. 7  Managerial Creativity 103  industries.  Five industry groups were identified: health care (n=94), education (n=64),  telecommunications (n=29), power utility (n=13), and miscellaneous private sector (n=21), the latter group being made up of the four private sector organizations having less than 10 participants in the study. After standardizing within industry, the 221 cases were then pooled in calculating all results reported for Study 5, with the exception of the reliability estimates, which were based on the unstandardized raw data. Treatment of Gender Groups in the Sample Gender differences are found with some individual-difference traits, and these differences, when present, can introduce distortions into correlational results when pooled-gender data are used. Thus, preliminary gender mean difference analyses were performed on the six predictor measures and six criterion scales, for a total of 12 comparisons. None of the comparisons was significant at the oc=.05 level, and with a liberal statistical criterion (a=.10) employed to avoid missing differences, only one of the 12 comparisons showed a statistically significant gender mean difference.  Overall, then, this chance level of statistically significant gender mean  differences suggested that a pooling of the data for subsequent analyses was warranted, and that distortions due to between-groups correlations would not occur because of gender pooling. Other, social value-based, reasons also existed for using the present mixed-gender data in pooled form.  Current thinking favours the use of common (rather than separate-gender or  separate-race) norms in testing applications, and this fact suggested performing the present analyses in a way reflecting the current selection assessment reality, in which selection takes place without concern for gender and other biodemographic variables. Thus, for reasons of both statistical precision and social values, pooled gender data were employed in all analyses. Reliability Estimation for Predictor and Criterion Scores From the (n=221) managers in the current study, internal consistency estimates were obtained for all of the predictor and criterion measures, except for the Wonderlic Personnel Test  Managerial Creativity 104  which is a well-established test with published reliability data. Coefficient alpha was used to estimate the internal consistency of the personality scales and criterion scales. Conversely, since both the Divergent Thinking Composite and the Evaluative Thinking Battery were made up of a number of different exercises, length-corrected, split-half, internal consistency estimates were used for these two cognitive measures. Intercorrelations Among the Predictor  Measures  The correlation matrix among the predictor measures was produced in order to revisit, in the management sample, the success of the test-development process in producing predictor variables that were close to orthogonal and free from bias due to socially desirable responding. This correlation matrix also shed light on the hypothesis about the relationship between the KAI and Openness. Estimation of Criterion-Related  Validity  Criterion-related (concurrent) validity coefficients were calculated between each predictor measure and the six performance criteria. Based on these initial validity coefficients, which were weak for the Evaluative Thinking Battery, and the finding that the Evaluative Thinking Battery had large ceiling effect problems resulting in very little variance in the current management sample, the Flaws, Merits, and Information exercises were dropped from the Evaluative Thinking Battery, and all subsequent analyses utilizing Evaluative Thinking were based on the Supervisory Practices exercise alone. The Supervisory Practices exercise was chosen to represent Evaluative Thinking because the Supervisory Practices exercise showed a tendency to have higher criterionrelated validity coefficients than the complete Evaluative Thinking Battery, and because the problems contained in the Supervisory Practices exercise have more relevance and face validity for managers than the problems contained in the other evaluative thinking exercises. As noted previously, there was a large range among participants in management tenure (3 months to 32 years in a supervisory/management position). Since Simon (1988) has indicated  Managerial Creativity 105  that creativity is significantly influenced by expertise, correlations between management tenure and the creativity criteria could add variance to the creativity criteria that is not predictable from the predictor measures; thus, for our purposes, correlations between experience and the creativity criteria could produce unwanted systematic error variance. However, all but one of the bivariate correlations between management experience and the six criterion measures were nonsignificant; the one correlation that reached significance at the a=.05 level was small and negative.  Given  this near-chance level of statistically significant experience-criterion correlations, it is clear that experience has no effect on the predictor-criterion validity coefficients in the present study. Nevertheless, in addition to standard predictor-criterion correlations, the criterion variables were regressed onto management tenure, and the standardized residual criterion scores were used in predictor-criterion correlations. The resulting predictor-criterion correlations can be understood as part correlations (or semi-partial correlations) with the effect of experience removed from the criterion measures. As expected, the criterion-related validity coefficients based on standardized residual scores differed little from the standard criterion-related validity coefficients, and, thus, for the sake of simplicity, all subsequent analyses used the unresidualized criterion scores. Part correlations and regression equations were calculated to gauge the independent relations between the predictor variables and creative performance. The regression equations also provided evidence of the predictive efficiency of the predictor variables, as a set. Additional hierarchical regression analyses were used to examine the possible effects on the creativity criteria of interactions between the predictor variables. If the reader recalls that all predictor and criterion scores were standardized within industries before being pooled, it should be clear that the predictor-criterion bivariate correlations and multiple correlations can be regarded as transorganizational, within-organization, criterion-related validity estimates. Corrections to Validity Estimates Because the thrust of this study deals with both practical issues (the application of the measurement instruments to selection assessment) and theoretical issues (the relationship  Managerial Creativity 106  between creativity  and various measurement  domains),  all predictor-criterion bivariate  correlations and multiple correlations were adjusted in two ways. First, for practical purposes, the predictor-criterion correlations were corrected for unreliability in the criterion alone; these partially-disattenuated correlations are called true validities represent the estimated  (Schmidt & Hunter, 1981), and  correlations between the predictor measures  performance rather than fallible measurements of the latter.  and true criterion  The partial corrections for  attenuation were rather small, being based on criterion reliability estimates ranging from .78 for the General Creativity Criterion to .94 for the General Management Performance Criterion. Second, for theoretical purposes, the predictor-criterion correlations were adjusted for unreliability in both the predictor and criterion measures; these fully-disattenuated correlations represent the estimated correlations between true predictor performance and true criterion performance rather than fallible measurement of the former or the latter. The full corrections for attenuation were, in some cases, moderately large, being based not only on criterion reliability estimates, but also on predictor reliability estimates which ranged from a low of .33 for the Supervisory Practices exercise to a high of .88 for the KAI. (All significance levels, however, were calculated on the basis of unadjusted correlations.) In correcting the multiple correlations, the reliability estimates for the weighted predictor composites were obtained by means of the standard formula for the reliability of a linear combination of variables.  Corrections for  unreliability have long been advocated in analyses like the present ones, in which the raw correlations obtained can fail to elucidate the phenomena of real interest (see, e.g., Lee, Miller, & Graham, 1982; Schmidt & Hunter, 1981, Schmidt, Hunter, & Caplan, 1981). Testing the Creative Management Model Median splits were made on the Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness, and Work Motivation Dimensions so as to dichotomize the participants into high and low scorers on each of these predictor variables.  A 2 (Divergent Thinking) x 2 (Evaluative Thinking) x 2  (Openness) x 2 (Work Motivation) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was then  Managerial Creativity 107  performed with the four specific creativity criterion scales as dependent variables. Because the various main and interaction effects in M A N O V A are not orthogonal unless cell size is proportional, 100 of the 212 participants for which there was complete predictor and criterion data had to be dropped from the analyses; the remaining 112 participants were equally distributed among the eight cells in the M A N O V A design (cell n = 7). These equal cell sizes were achieved by randomly dropping participants from each cell.  The effect which achieved multivariate  significance was followed up by univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs). Given the fact that Work Motivation is hypothesized by the Creative Management Model to activate creative potential rather than to determine creative potential, Work Motivation was dropped from the model, and a 2 (Divergent Thinking) x 2 (Evaluative Thinking) x 2 (Openness) M A N O V A was conducted, again using the four specific creativity criterion scales as dependent variables.  In this reduced model, 84 of the 212 participants with complete data had to be  randomly dropped from the analyses in order to achieve cell proportionality; the remaining 128 participants were equally distributed among the six cells in the M A N O V A design (cell n - 16). Univariate A N O V A s were used to follow up on the effects which achieved multivariate significance. Next, the participants were classified according to the eight creative management types using the median splits on Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, and Openness, and a MANOVA  was conducted using the eight-cell,  predictor-encoded, creative  management  classification as the independent variable, and the four specific creativity criteria as dependent variables.  (The predictor-encoded, creative management classification scheme is shown in  column 2 of Table 10.)  Although this One-Way M A N O V A lacked the design power of the  analogous 2 (Divergent Thinking) x 2 (Evaluative Thinking) x 2 (Openness) M A N O V A design described earlier, it gained power from being able to use all 212 participants for whom there was complete predictor and criterion data. The significant One-Way M A N O V A was followed up by One-Way A N O V A s and Tukey multiple comparisons. Tukey multiple comparisons were used  Managerial Creativity 108  Table 10 Classification  of the Creative Management Types Based Both on Combinations of Predictor  Variables and on Combinations of Criterion Creative Management Type  Variables  Predictor Combination  Criterion Combination  Global Change Agent  High Divergent Thinking High Evaluative Thinking High Openness  High Global Change High Assessing Feasibility High Supporting Change  Global Idea Generator  High Divergent Thinking Low Evaluative Thinking High Openness  High Global Change Low Assessing Feasibility High Supporting Change  Change Facilitator  Low Divergent Thinking High Evaluative Thinking High Openness  Low Global Change High Assessing Feasibility High Supporting Change  Change Enthusiast  Low Divergent Thinking Low Evaluative Thinking High Openness  Low Global Change Low Assessing Feasibility High Supporting Change  Incremental Change Agent  High Divergent Thinking High Evaluative Thinking Low Openness  High Global Change High Assessing Feasibility Low Supporting Change  Incremental Idea Generator  High Divergent Thinking Low Evaluative Thinking Low Openness  High Global Change Low Assessing Feasibility Low Supporting Change  Change Critic  Low Divergent Thinking High Evaluative Thinking Low Openness  Low Global Change High Assessing Feasibility Low Supporting Change  Change Inhibitor  Low Divergent Thinking Low Evaluative Thinking Low Openness  Low Global Change Low Assessing Feasibility Low Supporting Change  Managerial Creativity 109  because they maintain an experiment-wise error rate, rather than a more liberal contrast-based error rate. Hierarchical regression analyses were also conducted by regressing the four specific creativity criteria onto continuous scores on Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness, Work Motivation, and the two-way interactions among these predictor variables. The advantage of regression over analysis of variance was that it not only allowed the use of the whole sample of participants for whom there was complete data (as with the One-Way A N O V A ) , but also allowed the use of continuous scores on the predictor variables rather than dichotomous scores. In another approach to testing the Creative Management Model, median splits were made on the criterion scales measuring Global Change, Supporting Change, and Assessing Feasibility so as to dichotomize the participants into high and low scorers on each of these criterion scales. The participants were then classified into the eight creative management types based upon their high or low standing on each of these criterion scales. Only three of the four specific criterion scales could be used in the creative management typing because the addition of the fourth scale would lead to 16 possible creative management types, instead of eight. Since Global Change and Incremental Change were two criterion scales that both addressed the general idea of proposing ideas for change, it was decided to use only one of these two scales. Global Change was chosen for use because it both represented a more dramatic form of change-proposal behaviour, and because it was clear from the predictor-criterion bivariate correlations and multiple correlations that Global Change was more predictable from our predictor measures than was Incremental Change. The reader will recall that, for the purposes of the One-Way M A N O V A described above, the participants had already been classified into creative management types on the basis of predictor variables. The eight creative management types and both their predictor and criterion classification schemes are shown in Table 10. Once the participants had been classified into the eight creative management types on the basis of the criterion scales and on the basis of the  Managerial Creativity 110  predictor measures, the kappa statistic (Cohen, 1960) was calculated to measure the degree of agreement between the two classification schemes. RESULTS Reliability  of the Predictor and Criterion Scores  Internal consistency estimates for the predictor scores appear in Table 11. As can be seen from Table 11, the internal consistency estimates obtained from the management sample vary considerably across the various predictor measures.  Recalling that all of these measures had  acceptable reliability in a university student population, it is interesting to note that while the Divergent Thinking Composite and the Openness scale maintained levels of internal consistency that are comparable with other measures from their respective domains, the Evaluative Thinking Battery and the Work Motivation scale achieved internal consistency estimates in the management sample that were on the low side for their respective domains. The low internal consistency estimate for the Evaluative Thinking Battery can be attributed to range restriction resulting from a ceiling effect. In the management sample, the mean Evaluative Thinking score was 39 out of a possible 44, and the standard deviation was small, being just a little more than half of the standard deviation in the student development sample; thus, the Evaluative Thinking Battery was simply too easy for managers. Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that the internal consistency of the Evaluative Thinking Battery for a student population was never crossvalidated beyond the student development sample; thus, some drop in the internal consistency of the Evaluative Thinking Battery would be expected, even with another student sample, since the reliability  estimates obtained in the development sample were  capitalization on chance in the item-selection process.  somewhat  inflated by  Managerial Creativity 111  Table 11 Reliability Results: Internal Consistency Estimates for the Predictor Measures Criterion Measure  Number of Items  Internal Consistency  Divergent Thinking Composite  6  .81  a  Evaluative Thinking Battery  22  .54  a  Supervisory Practices exercise  6  .33  a  Openness  24  .84b  Work Motivation  20  .53  b  Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory  32  .88  b  Wonderlic Personnel Test  50  .88  d  c  a  Based on length-corrected, split-half, internal consistency estimates.  b  Based on coefficient alpha internal consistency estimates  c  The Wonderlic Personnel Test is a speeded test; thus, examinees complete a varying number of items and almost no one would complete all 50 items.  d Based on a consideration of the test-retest and alternate forms reliabilities cited in the User's Manual for the Wonderlic Personnel Test (Wonderlic Personnel Test, 1992, p. 21). Because the Wonderlic Personnel Test is a speeded test, internal consistency estimates are inappropriate estimates of reliability.  Managerial Creativity 112  The internal consistency estimate for the Supervisory Practices exercise, which will be used to represent the Evaluative Thinking dimension in subsequent validity analyses, also appears in Table 11. Although, at first glance, the Supervisory Practices exercise appears to have even lower internal consistency than the whole Evaluative Thinking Battery, it must be kept in mind that the Supervisory Practices Exercise is only a little more than one quarter the length of the entire Evaluative Thinking Battery. Using the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula, it can be shown that if the Supervisory Practices Exercise had as many items as the entire Evaluative Thinking Battery, its internal consistency would be on the order of .64. Turning to the Work Motivation scale, the reason for its limited internal consistency in the management sample is less clear, as there appears to be no range restriction problem; the standard deviation of the Work Motivation Scale is approximately the same in the management sample as it was in the student cross-validation sample. Because work motivation is clearly seen as a positive trait, it could be that in trying to develop a scale that was balanced for social desirability, the low social desirability/high motivation items and the high social desirability/low motivation items were somewhat tangentially-related to the concept of Work Motivation, and contained extraneous content (see for example, items #5 and #6 in Appendix M).  This  explanation, however, does not account for the higher internal consistency of the scale within student populations. Internal consistency estimates for the criterion scales appear in Table 12. These internal consistencies, which range from .78 to .94, are comparable to the internal consistencies obtained for similar performance appraisal questionnaire scales in other validity studies; for example, Hakstian, Scratchley, MacLeod, Tweed, and Siddarth (1997) reported internal consistency reliability estimates for nine performance appraisal dimensions that ranged from .83 to .92.  Managerial Creativity 113  Table 12 Reliability  Results: Internal Consistency (Coefficient Alpha) Estimates for the Criterion  Measures Criterion Measure  Number of Items  Internal Consistency  Global Change  8  .92  Incremental Change  8  .86  Supporting Change  8  .78  Assessing Feasibility  8  .81  General Creativity  24  .78  General Management Performance  36  .94  Managerial Creativity 114  Intercorrelations Among the Predictor  Measures  The intercorrelations among the predictor measures appear in Table 13. The Openness and Work Motivation scales both had small, but statistically  significant (p < .05) negative  correlations with the Impression Management Scale from the BIDR, indicating that participants were not achieving high scores on the Openness and Work Motivation scales by responding in a socially desirable manner. The correlation of .63 between the Supervisory Practices exercise and the complete Evaluative Thinking Battery should be viewed as an uncorrected part-total correlation.  The  corrected part-total correlation (the correlation of the Supervisory Practices exercise with the other three exercises included in the Evaluative Thinking Battery) is .23; this corrected correlation, which is analogous to the corrected item-total correlation used in item-analysis, is not very large. None of the evaluative thinking exercises correlated highly with each other (bivariate correlations between exercises ranged between .10 and .23).  Since most managers got most of  the items in the Evaluative Thinking Battery correct, there was little relationship between getting items right (wrong) on one exercise and getting items right (wrong) on the other exercises.  Managerial Creativity 115  Table 13 Intercorrelations  Among the Predictor Scores (n = 221) 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1. Divergent Thinking Composite  —  2. Evaluative Thinking Battery  .11  —  3. Supervisory Practices Exercise  .01  .63  —  4. Openness  .27  .22  .19  —  5. Work Motivation  .04  .04  .09  .32  -.10  -.01  .02  -.13  -.15  —  7. KAI  .23  .14  .10  .71  .21  -.11  —  8. Wonderlic Personnel Test  .30  .32  .08  .13  -.01  -.01  .11  6. BIDR  8  —  —  Note. BIDR = Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding; KAI = Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory. Magnitude of a bivariate correlation, based on an n of 221, necessary for significance (two-tailed): .05 level: 0.13; .01 level: 0.17; .005 level: 0.19; .001 level: 0.22  Managerial Creativity 116  The desired orthogonality of the primary predictor variables (Divergent Thinking Composite, Evaluative Thinking Battery, Openness) was not achieved except in the case of the 8  two cognitive measures. Openness correlated significantly with both of the cognitive measures, but the two cognitive measures did not correlate with each other.  When the Supervisory  Practices exercise is substituted for the complete Evaluative Thinking Battery, parallel orthogonality results are obtained.  The correlation between Openness and the two cognitive  measures, though not desired, is in keeping with previous empirical and theoretical literature linking openness to experience to both divergent thinking (see, e.g., King et al., 1996; McCrae, 1987) and intelligence in general (see, e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1985; Trapnell, 1994).  It is  somewhat surprising that the desired orthogonality was found in the two cognitive measures; one would have expected more difficulty in orthogonalizing two cognitive measures than in orthogonalizing cognitive and personality measures. The significant positive correlation between Openness and Work Motivation was not surprising either, in retrospect, for as Wiggins and Trapnell (1996) noted, a debate rages about whether the lexical fifth factor of the Five-Factor model of personality should be conceptualized as Openness to Experience or Intellect, with Intellect conceptions of Factor V connoting "competency, mastery, superiority, or leadership" (p. 144). Work motivation might be expected to relate to this agentic aspect of Factor V . Given prior links between openness to experience and intelligence, it is not surprising that Openness was significantly (although just marginally) positively correlated with the Wonderlic 9  Personnel Test. As one would expect, the Wonderlic Personnel Test also had significant and moderate correlations with the Divergent Thinking Composite and the Evaluative Thinking Battery. The Supervisory Practices exercise, however, had a significantly lower correlation with the Wonderlic Personnel Test than did the complete Evaluative Thinking Battery [%^(l) = 18.34, Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, and Openness are considered to be the primary predictor variables because they define the cells in the Creative Management Model. Because of the large number of correlations in Study 5, correlations which are significant at the .05 level, but not at the .01 level will be considered marginal. 8  9  Managerial Creativity 117  p < .00005]; in fact, the Supervisory Practices exercise simply did not correlate significantly with the Wonderlic Personnel Test. The lower reliability of the Supervisory Practices Exercise cannot fully account for its lack of relationship with the Wonderlic Personnel Test because even if the correlation between the Supervisory Practices Exercise and the Wonderlic Personnel Test is partially disattenuated for unreliability in the Supervisory Practices exercise, the correlation rises only to .14, which remains substantially lower than either the raw correlation of .32 or the partially-disattenuated correlation of .44 between the Evaluative Thinking Battery and the Wonderlic Personnel Test. These patterns of correlations suggest that scores on the Supervisory Practices exercise are less reliant on general intelligence than are scores on the other exercises in the Evaluative Thinking Battery. As anticipated, the largest correlation in Table 13 is the correlation of .71 between the KAI and the Openness scale; when fully disattenuated for unreliability in both of the measures, this correlation increased to .83, indicating that the Openness scale and that the KAI are largely alternative measures of the same construct.  Since the Openness scale was developed using  principles of personality measurement, the implication is that the KAI is measuring an aspect of personality, and the evidence suggests that the aspect of personality being measured is certain facets of openness to experience.  Managerial Creativity 118  Intercorrelations Among the Criterion  Measures  The intercorrelations among the criterion measures appear in Table 14. A l l of the criterion measures were significantly positively related to each other, with moderate to high correlations ranging between .31 and .85. One would expect high correlations among criterion scales that tap into the similar performance domains (i.e., creative management behaviour), but even the General Management Performance criterion, which was not designed to measure creativity specifically, correlated substantially with all of the other criterion scales.  In discussing these  high criterion intercorrelations, three potential explanations need to be considered. First, it may be that there was a high degree of content overlap in the six criterion scales. Looking at the content of the criterion scales in Appendices P, content overlap might explain the correlation between Global Change and Incremental Change, for example, but it would not explain the correlation of identical magnitude between Supporting Change and Assessing Feasibility.  A second possibility to be considered is that managers who display superior  behaviour in one aspect of management also tend to display superior behaviour in other aspects of management; this possibility implies the existence of a general management ability that operates across behavioural domains. The third possibility is that rater halo bias is accounting for the high intercorrelations among the criterion scales; that is, the supervisors who provided the ratings may have failed to properly consider each behaviour being rated and may have, instead, based their ratings on their general impressions of the managers being rated. Arguing against this halo interpretation is the fact that the predictor variables used in this study demonstrated differential validity for the various criterion scales, predicting some criteria much better than others. It is likely that content overlap, general management ability, and rater halo bias all had some role to play in the high degree of intercorrelation among the criterion variables.  Managerial Creativity 119  Table 14 Intercorrelations  Among the Criterion Scores (n=212) 1  1. Global Change  —  2. Incremental Change  .65  —  3. Supporting Change  .55  .64  —  4. Assessing Feasibility  .54  .66  .64  —  5. General Creativity  .71  .42  .49  .34  —  6. General Management Performance  .49  .65  .77  .85  .31  —  Note. Magnitude of a bivariate correlation, based on an n of 212, necessary for significance (two-tailed): .001 level: 0.23.  Managerial Creativity 120  Criterion-Related  Validity  Criterion-related (concurrent) validity coefficients of the six predictor measures for the six performance criteria appear in Table 15.  For comparative purposes, validity coefficients are  shown both as correlation coefficients and as part correlation coefficients with the effect of supervisory/management experience partialled out of the criteria. As can be seen from Table 15, partialling supervisory/management experience out of the criteria made almost no difference to the validity coefficients; in no case did the part correlation differ by more than .02 from the corresponding bivariate correlation. Thus, management/supervisory experience will not be a consideration in subsequent analyses. BIVARIATE  PREDICTOR-CRITERION  CORRELATIONS  The criterion-related validity coefficients  appear again in Table 16.  The bivariate  predictor-criterion correlations are provided, along with their corresponding true validity coefficients (validity coefficients disattenuated for unreliability in the criterion only) and fullydisattenuated validity coefficients (validity coefficients corrected for attenuation in both the predictor and the criterion). The true validities are of practical interest because they estimate the correlations between the predictor variables and true criterion performance unfettered by performance measurement error.  Since all of the criterion scales had fairly high reliability  estimates, the true validities differ little from the raw predictor-criterion correlations. The fullydisattenuated correlations are of theoretical interest because they estimate the correlations between true predictor standing and true criterion performance unfettered by measurement error on either the predictor or the criterion side.  These fully-disattenuated correlations are of  particular interest for the Work Motivation and Evaluative Thinking measures, whose low reliabilities have substantially limited their potential to correlate with the criterion measures. As can be seen from Table 16, a more reliable version of the Supervisory Practices exercise appears to have more potential for predicting both managerial creativity and general management performance than is apparent from the raw predictor-criterion correlations.  Managerial Creativity 121  a 8 w  3  aa °  SP  rt o 3  45  rt «  O T t  o  co  o  CN  o  o  o  cn  o  o  Ov  r-H  oo  o  o o  o  CD  >  CD  ON  O  q T t  d  s* u  u  CN CN TICS  q  o q  m  cn  VO  CN  T f  O  ^H  T f  o  T f  T f  o  '—1  ON  cn  TH -  CD > JD  un  o  ^H  T3 CD  eo >>  .if  3  % '£  <  3  .2 'ul  CD  H—>  •a  u  PH  O  ON  T f  ON  VO O  C N  ON  T t '—I  ON  VO  O  o  O  '—'  o  o  00  o  oo  — ' 1  '—1  CD CD  3 rt  CD  3 00  00  5  O  ^1  CD  c l rt  cn  T t  un  T f  q  o  00  q  cn  VO  oo  i-H  un  t>  ^. H  o  *™H  .—i  q  o  T t  Ui  q O  .o  cn  O  co CD O CD  3  1 c° (3 rt <D O  S3  X  U  vo  o  un  o  CN  '"I (N ^H  ^H  o CN  VO  O CN  VO  q  o  un  CN T f  '~ . H  VO  CN Vui  O  T t 1  C  3 O T 3 — i  CD  rt eo O  rt  un CN  (N  O  VO CN  (N  ON  i  o  cn  o  CN  cn  cn  o CN  vo cn  T t  T t  r-  CD co  rt X>  a  o rt  13  cn  o © CD  CD +-»  • »H  •§  co  O  B o U CD Ul  3  rt CD  00 3  CD  T3  CD  a m  00 3  <D  w  CD  H  CO CD O  13  • >—I  3  4—*  Xi  H  3  CD  00 Ui  CD >  O  a  3 •4—*  O H-»  -4—<  rt >  u  H  PH  CD »  rt 3 "rt >  & O  CO  '> u  <D  Oi 3 00  ..  3 13  CO  CO CO CD  3 3  CD  OH  O  3 3  O  CO  u  rtO.  cu.  O CN  4JO  sis  3 > 00 J2  CD  PH UI  CD  O  I*  T3 3 O  *2un S  £  P od  < o  I § cu B 60 c a a a rt  .X 00  K  -.04) [-•04;  Managerial Creativity 122  •<* 0  tu  ON  0  T—H  c  0 0  0  00  ON  1—I  q  0  O  00  0  ^H  q  1—1  CO  O  q  Trt  O  1—I  q  q q  q  CO  CD  CD  43 B  _o B 'rt O rt "cD  CN  CO  0  in  r-  CO  1 H  1 H  1 H ,—^  rt^j  vo  00  T-H  q  •<*  vo 0  T-H  CN  ^. O  ^H  i—I  T3  fc c rt O CD o rtCD 'C _CJ CD  CD rt  ON CO  .—i rtH  •d o  CD  -C  rt  ca  CD  k.  Si a a  Si  OQ  Ik  a  e o  60  Q 'rt  CD  60 "  00  ^H  (N  0  VO  <N O  ON q  •<* .—i  vo  l<0  CO CM  B -rt  1-e  CO'  O  VO O  o q  CO .—I  CO CN ^H  <N ON ^H  VO q  1—I  00  q  Co  s •2 c  t/3  IT)  O  0  rt  VO q  00  o ••a .a  a a a Si c a, -S^ •2  <3  to  ment ange  ik.  CD rt O  a  4=  U  , ^  VO q q  r—H  0  a tu  .—i  CD  rt bo 42 C O rt  36  •2 IS £5 §  ST o ik a U ft.  CO CN VO CN  I  o  5  U  00  l  o S*. >—H  C O rtH CN .—1  00  0  Trt  Trt  O  0  0O  vo  00  CN CN  q  T—H  in ^H  O CN  vo  VO .—i  ^H  ON  ON  O  ON  r-  C O .—I  ON O ON O  q  rt  •S a  CD  O rt CD  rt CD >  CD  CD  Trt •3 -S3 boq eg . r-  •<*  CN  Trt CO  CN O CN  rrt  E-i  43  C/J  43 0  '— rt O  cj  CD  43  00  CO VO CO  '"I  '—  rt  lH  1  t2 a d 13 >  T rt r^H  0  CD  CD  rt T3  43  00  rt a 'I? rt 1—1  PH  3  co  co CD  'S  CD  CO  c  B  OH  o  c o > o  s •a o  "u c c o CO I-H CD  PH  CD  3 O  q CD  +-»  1 3 .53 O O • 5 H '3 CO  rt  CD CD  a s  3  B a .SP 'co  CD  rt rt  3 on  q do"  sCO C CD O 3 rt>-> O rtrt 3 T3 B q •c CD  H  co CD O "rt CD  OH  O  1  _B  CD  CD  >  CD  rt UO  CD  rt  J3  CD >  > PJ  CD  1-1 OH  T3 Hrt "rt o > a  & O  O  c O o lrt H CN •3 rt O CN O CD CD  O CD  X  c  'a  rt• f c  PJ  60 C  3  HO " C 3  CD  CD  60  CD  CD  > •O _<D CD  43  ON q  Trt  rt  CD rt  O  q CO  rtH  O _o  Crt  CD  CN  ^1  Trt  0  CO  CN  (rt  CN  s  O CN  CD rt  O  3  1—H  1—I 1—I  CO CN • ;  CN  CN  00  42  vD  & rtO rta"trt  ON O q  CD  orre he  Si  q  -.02)  60 >^  "rt  iva  O  CN  1—J ^—^  vel  tN  i-H i-H  ail  q 1 H  ion  u  u  </-)  1 H  ion erio reliiabi  to  0 CO  atte ated esti nates ifica  a  CD  "cO  rt40 rt £>  ON 0  CO  rt  1 rt > CD  43  3  PH  •s LH  CO CO rt rt  s CN  rel ece  Si  5a  3 0 •3  O  O a C N ^H CN  T  —* 1HCD  H  0.  able redi  rt •«  to  •G  CO  trt  CO  H3  Ik  I  rt rt  CD  1—i  Crt  O  Managerial Creativity 123  Although the raw predictive validities of the Supervisory Practices exercise and the full Evaluative Thinking Battery (which, of course, includes the Supervisory Practices exercise) did not significantly differ for any of the criterion variables (all  < 1.83, all ps > .10), the validities  of the Supervisory Practices exercise were higher than the validities of the full Evaluative Thinking Battery for five of the six criterion variables. These higher—though not significantly higher—validities for the Supervisory Practices exercise exist despite the fact that the Supervisory Practices exercise had even greater hindrance from low reliability than did the full Evaluative Thinking Battery. It is, therefore, not surprising that the fully-disattenuated validities of the Supervisory Practices exercise were equivalent to, or higher than, the fully-disattenuated validities of the Evaluative Thinking Battery for all of the criteria. The reason for the apparent tendency toward predictive superiority for the Supervisory Practices exercise over the rest of the Evaluative Thinking Battery may have to do with its management-related content which brings it into the realm of a low-fidelity  management  simulation (Motowidlo, Dunnette, & Carter, 1990), whereas the other evaluative thinking exercises are no more than simple cognitive tests. Simulations, which are designed as minireplicas of specific aspects of a job, appear to possess higher criterion-related validity than general tests designed to indicate predispositions that might be important to the job (Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, & Kirsch, 1984). In any case, given the general predictive superiority of the Supervisory Practices Exercise, it will be used, instead of the full Evaluative Thinking Battery, to represent the Evaluative Thinking predictor dimension in all further analyses. Because it has been established earlier that the Openness scale and the K A I are two alternative measures of the same construct, it is noteworthy that the Openness scale had consistently higher validities than the KAI for all of the criterion variables, although none of these differences in validity were significant (all  < 3.74, all ps > .05).  Managerial Creativity 124  In comparing Divergent Thinking and IQ, it can be seen from Table 16 that Divergent Thinking correlated positively and significantly with Global Change and General Creativity. IQ, in contrast, had a significant positive correlation with Assessing Feasibility and significant (though marginal) positive correlations with Global Change and Incremental Change. Although the correlations of Divergent Thinking with Global Change and General Creativity appear substantially larger than the correlations of IQ with these two creativity criteria, neither of the differences between the Divergent Thinking correlations and the IQ correlations reached significance.  Thus, even in the case of General Creativity, for which the Divergent Thinking  correlation was significant, but the IQ correlation was not significant, the difference between these two correlations did not, itself, reach significance.  The positive correlation of IQ with  Assessing Feasibility was, however, significantly larger than the near-zero, negative correlation of Divergent Thinking with Assessing Feasibility.  The relative contributions of Divergent  Thinking and IQ to the prediction of the criterion measures will be explored further when their part correlations are examined in an upcoming section of this thesis. Considering the four predictor variables from the Creative Management Model, it can be seen from Table 16 that: (1) the Global Change criterion was significantly positively correlated with Divergent Thinking, Openness, and Work Motivation; (2) the Incremental Change and Assessing Feasibility criteria were both significantly positively related to Openness and both significantly (although marginally) positively related to Evaluative Thinking (as measured by the Supervisory Practices exercise); (3) the Supporting Change criterion was significantly (although marginally) positively correlated only with Openness; (4) the General Creativity criterion was significantly positively related to Divergent Thinking and Openness; and (5) the General Management Performance criterion was not significantly related to any of the predictor variables. Since the general Management Performance criterion was unrelated to any of the predictor variables, it was dropped from further analyses.  Managerial Creativity 125  MULTIPLE  REGRESSION  ANALYSES  Regression equations predicting the five creativity criteria from the four predictor variables included in the Creative Management Model (i.e., Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness and Work Motivation) were computed to assess the independent relations of the predictors to creative performance. All four predictor variables were forced into the equations. The four predictor variables accounted for 21% of the variance in Global Change, 6% of the variance in Incremental Change, 3% of the variance in Supporting Change, 5% of the variance in Assessing Feasibility, and 19% of the variance in General Creativity; these figures indicate that the Global Change and General Creativity criteria were more predictable from the chosen predictor variables than the other criterion scales. The multiple regression results are reported in Tables 17 through 21. Only Openness contributed significantly  to the prediction of Incremental Change,  Assessing Feasibility, and General Creativity. Both Openness and Divergent Thinking, on the other hand, contributed significantly to the prediction of Global Change, while no predictor variables contributed significantly to the prediction of Supporting Change. Thus, although zeroorder correlations suggest additional predictive relationships between (1) Divergent Thinking and the General Creativity criterion, (2) Evaluative Thinking and both the Incremental Change and Assessing Feasibility criteria, (3) Openness and the Supporting Change criteria, and (4) Work Motivation and Global Change criterion, regression analyses did not support the independent contribution of these additional predictor variables.  Managerial Creativity 126  Table 17 Bivariate Correlations and Regression Coefficients for Predicting Global Change from Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness and Work Motivation (n=212) Predictor  Bivariate Correlation  (3  Significance of P  Divergent Thinking  .26  .15  <.05  Evaluative Thinking  .09  .02  >.75  Openness  .43  .35  <.0001  Work Motivation  .20  .08  >.10  Multiple R = .45, R = .21; F = 13.45, p < .0001 Adjusted Multiple R = .44, Adjusted R = .19 True Adjusted Multiple R = .46 Fully-Disattenuated Adjusted Multiple R = .49 2  2  Note: Evaluative Thinking was measured using the Supervisory Practices exercise.  Managerial Creativity 127  Table 18 Bivariate Correlations and Regression Coefficients for Predicting Incremental Change from Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness and Work Motivation (n=2I2) Predictor  Bivariate Correlation  (3  Significance of (3  Divergent Thinking  .05  -.00  >.75  Evaluative Thinking  .17  .13  >.05  Openness  .20  .18  <.05  Work Motivation  .06  -.01  >.75  Multiple R = .24, R = .06; F = 3.21, p < .05 Adjusted Multiple R = .20, Adjusted R = .04 True Adjusted Multiple R = .22 Fully-Disattenuated Adjusted Multiple R = .26 2  2  Note: Evaluative Thinking was measured using the Supervisory Practices exercise.  Managerial Creativity 128  Table 19 Bivariate Correlations and Regression Coefficients for Predicting Supporting Change from Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness and Work Motivation (n=212) Predictor  Bivariate Correlation  P  Significance of (3  Divergent Thinking  .05  .01  >.75  Evaluative Thinking  .11  .09  >.10  Openness  .15  .13  >.10  Work Motivation  .07  .02  >.75  R = .03  Adjusted R = .01  Multiple R = .18  2  2  F = 1.70,  Multiple R = .18, R = .03; F = 1.70, p > .10 Adjusted Multiple R = .11, Adjusted R = .01 True Adjusted Multiple R = .13 Fully-Disattenuated Adjusted Multiple R = .15 2  2  Note: Evaluative Thinking was measured using the Supervisory Practices exercise.  p>.10  Managerial Creativity 129  Table 20 Bivariate Correlations and Regression Coefficients for Predicting Assessing Feasibility Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness and Work Motivation (n=212) Predictor  from  Bivariate Correlation  p  Significance of p  Divergent Thinking  -.02  -.08  >.25  Evaluative Thinking  .14  .11  >.10  Openness  .19  .19  <.05  Work Motivation  .06  -.01  >.75  Multiple R = .23, R = .05; F = 2.85, p < .05 Adjusted Multiple R = .18, Adjusted R = .03 True Adjusted Multiple R = .20 Fully-Disattenuated Adjusted Multiple R = .24 2  2  Note: Evaluative Thinking was measured using the Supervisory Practices exercise.  Managerial Creativity 130  Table 21 Bivariate Correlations and Regression Coefficients for Predicting General Creativity Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness and Work Motivation (n=212) Predictor  from  Bivariate Correlation  (3  Significance of (3  Divergent Thinking  .24  .11  >.05  Evaluative Thinking  .06  -.02  >.50  Openness  .42  .41  <.0001  W o r k Motivation  .10  .04  >.50  Multiple R = .44, R = .19; F = 12.45, p < .0001 Adjusted Multiple R = .42, Adjusted R = .18 True Adjusted Multiple R = .48 Fully-Disattenuated Adjusted Multiple R = .52 2  2  Note: Evaluative Thinking was measured using the Supervisory Practices exercise.  Managerial Creativity 131  For practical (selection) purposes, the multiple regression results from regressing the two most predictable criteria, Global Change and General Creativity, onto the two most predictive independent variables, Divergent Thinking and Openness, are provided in Tables 22 and 23. Divergent Thinking and Openness produced adjusted true multiple correlations  10  predicting Global Change and .49 in predicting General Creativity.  of .46 in  These true validities  resulting from optimal weightings of Divergent Thinking and Openness differ little from the true validities of .44 and .46 that result when the unit-weighted composite of Divergent Thinking and Openness are correlated with Global Change and General Creativity, respectively. The validity results for the unit-weighted composite of Divergent Thinking and Openness are also provided in Tables 22 and 23. EFFECTS OF CONTROLLING FOR CERTAIN V A R I A B L E S — P A R T CORRELATIONS Because IQ, as measured by the Wonderlic Personnel Test, was significantly positively related to Divergent Thinking, and Openness, as well as to three of the five creativity criteria, part correlations of Divergent Thinking and Openness with the five creativity criteria were computed, with the effects of IQ removed from Divergent Thinking and Openness. paralleled the zero-order correlations.  11  The results  Controlling for IQ, Divergent Thinking remained  positively correlated with the Global Change and General Creativity criteria, while Openness remained positively correlated with all five of the creativity criteria.  When the effects of  Divergent Thinking and Openness, respectively, were removed from IQ, however, and the part correlations between IQ and the five creativity criteria were calculated, the results differed from the zero-order correlations. Only one of the three significant zero-order correlations between IQ and the creativity criteria (i.e., the correlation with Assessing Feasibility) remained significant, regardless of whether it was Divergent Thinking or Openness that was partialled out of IQ. A n adjusted true multiple correlation has first been adjusted to remove the bias due to capitalization on chance in assigning weights to the predictor variables, and then corrected for attenuation in the criterion variable. 1 0  Evaluative Thinking (as measured by the Supervisory Practices exercise) was not included in these partcorrelational analyses. Although as a cognitive variable, Evaluative Thinking might be susceptible to claims that its 1 1  Managerial Creativity 132  Table 22 Bivariate Correlations and Regression Coefficients for Predicting Global Change from Divergent Thinking and Openness (n=212) Predictor  Bivariate Correlation  P  Significance of (3  Divergent Thinking  .26  .14  <.05  Openness  .43  .38  <.0001  Multiple R = .45, R = .20; F = 26.22, p < .0001 Adjusted Multiple R = .44, Adjusted R = .19 True Adjusted Multiple R = .46 Fully-Disattenuated Adjusted Multiple R = .49 2  2  Unit-Weighted Composite of Divergent Thinking and Openness r=.42 True r = .44 Fully-Disattenuated r = .48  predictive effects are due to shared variance with general intelligence, the independence of the Supervisory Practices exercise from IQ was previously established from bivariate correlational results.  Managerial Creativity 133  Table 23 Bivariate Correlations and Regression Coefficients for Predicting General Creativity from Divergent Thinking and Openness (n=212) Predictor  Bivariate Correlation  P  Significance of P  Divergent Thinking  .24  .12  >.05  Openness  .42  .39  <.0001  Multiple R = .44, R = .19; F = 24.84, p < .0001 Adjusted Multiple R = .42, Adjusted R = .18 True Adjusted Multiple R = .49 Fully-Disattenuated Adjusted Multiple R = .52 2  2  Unit-Weighted Composite of Divergent Thinking and Openness r = .41 True r = .46 Fully-Disattenuated r = .50  Managerial Creativity 134  As with the zero-order correlations discussed in an earlier section of this thesis, the part correlations of Divergent Thinking with Global Change and General Creativity, after removing the effect of IQ from Divergent Thinking, were substantially—but not significantly—larger than the part correlations of IQ with these two criteria, after removing the effect of Divergent Thinking from IQ [both %^(1) < 2.62, both ps > .10].  Again paralleling the zero-order  correlational results, the part correlation of IQ with Assessing Feasibility, with the effect of Divergent Thinking removed from IQ, was significantly larger than the part correlation of Divergent Thinking with Assessing Feasibility, with the effect of IQ removed from Divergent Thinking [X^(l) = 6.24, p < .05].  In summary, it is clear that in choosing a set of predictor  variables to be used in a selection setting, Divergent Thinking would be chosen over IQ if the goal were to predict the prototypical aspects of creativity that are represented by the Global Change and General Creativity criteria, even though the predictive superiority of Divergent Thinking did not reach significance. Conversely, IQ would be chosen over Divergent Thinking if the goal of the selection assessment were to predict the types of convergent- or critical-thinking represented by the Assessing Feasibility criterion. Since Divergent Thinking and Openness were significantly positively related to each other, it also seemed important to establish the independent validity of each of these constructs when controlling for the other. When the effect of Divergent Thinking was removed from Openness, the part correlations between Openness and the five creativity criteria all remained significant. When the effect of Openness was removed from Divergent Thinking, however, one of the two significant zero-order correlations between Divergent Thinking and the creativity criteria (i.e., the correlation with General Creativity) became nonsignificant, and the other correlation (i.e., the correlation with Global Change) became only marginally significant. The findings that the correlations of Divergent Thinking with Global Creativity and General Creativity remained significant when the effect of IQ was removed from Divergent Thinking, but became marginally significant or nonsignificant when the effect of Openness was  Managerial Creativity 135  removed from Divergent Thinking suggest that the capacity of Divergent Thinking to predict creativity criteria may be due more to shared variance with Openness than to shared variance with IQ. In fact, the part correlations of Divergent Thinking with both Global Change and General Creativity were significantly lower when the effect of Openness had been removed from Divergent Thinking than when the effect of IQ had been removed from Divergent Thinking [both > 6.57, both ps < .01]. Examining these relationships in more detail, there was marginal shrinkage in the zero-order correlation between Divergent Thinking and Global Change when the effect of IQ was removed from Divergent Thinking [%^(1) = 4.14, p < .05], but there was substantial shrinkage in the same zero-order correlation when the effect of Openness was removed from Divergent Thinking [x^(l) = 37.97, p < .000001].  Similarly, there was no  significant shrinkage in the zero-order correlation between Divergent Thinking and General Creativity when the effect of IQ was removed from Divergent Thinking [%(1) = 1.08, p > .25], 2  but there was substantial shrinkage in that zero-order correlation when the effect of Openness was removed from Divergent Thinking [%(1) = 37.86, p < .000001]. 2  The zero-order and part correlations of Divergent Thinking, Openness, and IQ with the creativity criteria are provided in Table 24.  Managerial Creativity 136  SH  H  Q  d  CO  o  M  CN  o CN  oo cn  00 S3  '•3 »  CO  43  H  o  ON  in  H Q  S d  VO  CD  • -  CD CD CD  S3 CN  00 tt <H 5 CN CD O  I—I  d  Q 42 II .rt  cn T t  o  M  ON  CN  CN T t  ? | ao T3 CD  S3 O  o o  H  Q  oo  o  cn  =3  CD  a i—i  H  (N CN  Q  —<  T f  o  o  00  o  CN  a CN  2 o© CD > CD  .rt a 1 / 3  o  CD  CO  rt 43 cn  PH  o  O O  II  1 1  O  o 13 Ui  ^ _tD t3  CD  43  O  Ul  •>—'  ?  O  5  ©  o cs Q  VO CN  in  o  M  o  CN  o  T t  CN  t—i  £5 1 — 1  CN  CN  M  in O  CD  ^ &  ry O O  cd  ii '-6 rt  3  O  co co  CD  42 ^  |8  S3 13 00 o° CD rt  5 0 § o •*& 13 5 . ~  +-* <u  ! o o H  3 >  O ^3 M © • § .3 CD  Q  cn  a  CN  ON  o  ^  T t  o  3  43 43 H PH O H 3 00 43 tt  "U  00  CD  5t ^ CD ui  cn O  u  oo  >  CD - J H  3  43  H  £  o  CD  00 CD  oo 3  'ul  <D H-»  u  u 13 o  a  s  u 13 +s-»  00  00 S3 PH PH  ^  rt  U  o  3S  CO  c  ©. u^  CD  ^3  u  r3  00  <D  HH H->  43  '£  CD  IS  CO >H  cn 13 r3 <u Jo £ rt  c« a) <C PH  u 13 SH  CD  13 CD  a  II g H  -a  P 42  43 4-»  is  S  ' >  CD  >  CD  <«  '  3  C> "rt ?? rt  ^  »• ^  t i 2. .2 rt 3 5  CH  CD  IS' O  PH  3  00 '35  Managerial Creativity 137  ADDITIONAL  ANALYSES  WITH GENERAL  INTELLIGENCE  Up to this point in the data analyses, it has not appeared that IQ has much relationship to creativity performance in managers.  As expected, in the current sample of managers, the  predictiveness of IQ was limited by range-restriction; whereas the Wonderlic Personnel Test has a mean of 21.8 and a standard deviation of 7.6 in the general adult working population (Wonderlic Personnel Test, 1992, p. 25), the current management sample had a mean of 27.3 and a standard deviation of 4.7. The lack of validity for IQ in predicting creativity among managers, however, is also consistent with the idea that there is a threshold effect for IQ such that some minimum level of intelligence is necessary for creativity to take place, but above this threshold level, IQ is unrelated to creativity.  Since some theories of creative achievement, however,  suggest that divergent thinking and intelligence interact in the real world rather than operating independently (e.g., Albert, 1975, 1980; Albert & Runco, 1986; Nicholls, 1972; Renzulli, 1978), hierarchical regression analyses were conducted using Divergent Thinking, IQ, and Divergent Thinking x IQ as predictors. The interaction term was calculated by converting the Divergent Thinking and IQ scores to standardized scores, and computing the product of the two standardized scores. The two criterion variables that were both most predictable, in general, and most similar to the general understanding of creative achievement, Global Change and General Creativity, were used as the dependent variables for these hierarchical regression analyses. For each regression equation, the main effects were entered on the first step and the interaction was entered on the second step. The hierarchical regression results for the Global Change criterion, displayed in Table 25, show that the only significant effect was a main effect for Divergent Thinking. The results for the General Creativity criterion, displayed in Table 26, on the other hand, show a significant main effect for Divergent Thinking that is qualified by a significant Divergent Thinking x IQ interaction.  In order for the significance test for the interaction term to be appropriate, it is  necessary to have all of the lower-order terms of the interaction in the equation (Cohen, 1978).  Managerial Creativity 138  Table 25 Hierarchical  Regression of Global Change on Divergent Thinking and IQ  Predictor  P  Significance of (3  R Change  Significance of R Change  .08  <.0005  .009  >.10  2  Main Effects Entered on Step 1 Divergent Thinking  .22  <.005  IQ  .11  >.10  Interaction Entered on Step 2 .09  Divergent Thinking x IQ  >.10  Multiple R = .29, R = .09; F(3, 208) = 6.51, p<.0005 Adjusted Multiple R = .27, Adjusted R = .07 2  2  2  Managerial Creativity 139  Table 26 Hierarchical  Regression of General Creativity on Divergent Thinking and IQ Significance  Predictor  P  of (3  R  2  Main Effects Entered on Step 1  Change .06  Divergent Thinking  .21  <.005  IQ  .05  >.25  Interaction Entered on Step 2  Significance of R Change 2  <.005  <.05 .14  Divergent Thinking x IQ  <.05  Multiple R = .28, R == .08; F(3, 209) = 5.79, p<.001 Adjusted Multiple R = .25, Adjusted R = .06 2  2  .02  Managerial Creativity 140  Consequently, even though the IQ term is not significant, it is necessary to keep it in the equation to test and interpret the interaction term correctly. The nature of the interaction between Divergent Thinking and IQ in predicting the General Creativity criterion can be clarified by examining the regression equation more closely.  The  equation predicting General Creativity (GC) from Intelligence (IQ), Divergent Thinking (DT), and their interaction (IQDT) can be written as follows: G C = .05 IQ + (.21 + .14IQ)DT, with terms regrouped to facilitate interpretation.  (1)  From this equation, it can be seen that the  predictive effect of Divergent Thinking on General Creativity, after controlling for IQ, is in parentheses and depends on the level of IQ. Consider a highly intelligent person with an IQ z-score of 1.5; the expression in parentheses, reflecting the importance of Divergent Thinking in predicting General Creativity, would equal .42 for this individual. On the other hand, for a less intelligent person with an IQ z-score of -1.5, the same expression would indicate an importance of 0 for Divergent Thinking in predicting General Creativity. Thus, divergent thinking appears to be more predictive of General Creativity for highly intelligent managers than for less intelligent managers. Although Runco (1986a) was unable to find a significant Divergent Thinking x IQ interaction in the prediction of children's creative performance, the present finding is consistent with Runco's (1986b) evidence that Divergent Thinking tests had criterion-related validity only in gifted, but not in ungifted children. Runco (1986a) also suggested that if motivation is necessary for creative performance, then a three-way interaction between divergent thinking, IQ, and motivation might predict real-world creative performance. In order to test this hypothesis, additional hierarchical regression analyses were conducted using the Global Change and General Creativity criteria as the dependent variables, and regressing them on Divergent Thinking, IQ, Work Motivation, and all of the twoand three-way interactions among these predictor variables. Once again, the interaction terms were calculated as the products of standardized scores. For each equation, the main effects were  Managerial Creativity 141  entered on the first step, the two-way interactions were entered on the second step, and the threeway interaction was entered on the third step. The results for the General Creativity criterion, reported in Table 27, show a significant main effect for Divergent Thinking; no other main effects or interactions were significant. The results for the Global Change criterion, displayed in Table 28, on the other hand, show a significant main effect for Divergent Thinking, and a significant main effect for Work Motivation which is qualified by a significant IQ x Work Motivation interaction. Since the other interaction terms were not significant, they were removed from the equation, and the standardized regression weights (beta weights) were recalculated. The resulting equation for predicting Global Change (GL) from Divergent Thinking (DT), Work Motivation (WM), Intelligence (IQ), and the interaction between Work Motivation and IQ (WMIQ) can be written as follows: G L = .22DT + . 1 7 W M + (.ll - . 1 5 W M ) I Q .  (2)  From this equation, it can be seen that the predictive effect of IQ on Global Change, after controlling for Divergent Thinking and Work Motivation, is in parentheses and depends on the level of Work Motivation. Consider a fairly motivated manager with a Work Motivation z-score of 1.0; the expression in parentheses, reflecting the importance of IQ in predicting Global Change, would equal -.04 for this individual. On the other hand, for a less motivated manager with a Work Motivation z-score of -1.0, the same expression would indicate an importance of .26 for IQ in predicting Global Change. Thus, IQ appears to be less predictive of Global Change for highly motivated managers than for less motivated managers.  Managerial Creativity 142  Table 27 Hierarchical  Regression of General Creativity on Divergent Thinking, IQ, and Work Motivation  Predictor  (3  Significance of (3  R Change  Significance of R Change  .06  <.005  .03  >.05  .00  >.75  Main Effects Entered on Step 1 Divergent Thinking  .21  <.005  IQ  .05  >.25  Work Motivation  .08  >.25  2- Way Interactions Entered on Step 2 Divergent Thinking x IQ  .13  >.05  Divergent Thinking x Work Motivation  -.06  >.25  IQ x Work Motivation  -.06  >.25  3- Way Interactions Entered on Step 3 Divergent Thinking x IQ x  -.01  >.75  Work Motivation Multiple R = .30, R = .09; F(7, 205) = 2.98,p<.01 Adjusted Multiple R = .25, Adjusted R = .06 2  2  2  2  Managerial Creativity 143  Table 28 Hierarchical  Regression of Global Change on Divergent Thinking, IQ, and Work Motivation  Predictor  (3  Significance of (3  R Change  Significance of R Change  .11  <.0001  .03  <.05  .002  >.50  2  M a i n Effects Entered on Step 1 Divergent Thinking  .23  <.005  IQ  .11  >.05  W o r k Motivation  .15  <.05  2- W a y Interactions Entered on Step 2 Divergent Thinking x IQ  .06  >.25  Divergent Thinking x  .10  >.10  -.17  <.05  2  W o r k Motivation IQ x W o r k Motivation 3- W a y Interactions Entered on Step 3 Divergent Thinking x IQ x  .05  >.50  W o r k Motivation Multiple R = .39, R = A5; F(l, 204) = 5.10,/?<.0001 Adjusted Multiple R = .35, Adjusted R = .12 2  2  Managerial Creativity 144  On the basis of the just-reported IQ x Divergent Thinking and IQ x Work Motivation interactions in the regression equations for General Creativity and Global Change, respectively, it appeared reasonable to look for the presence of other interactions in the prediction of these two criterion variables.  12  Full hierarchical regression results for the Global Change criterion, with  main effects for Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, IQ, Openness, and Work Motivation entered on Step 1, and all two-way interactions entered on Step 2, are presented in Table 29. When all of the main effects and two-way interactions were entered into the regression equation, the main effects for Divergent Thinking and Openness remained significant, but the IQ x Work Motivation interaction became marginal ((3 = -.13, p < .10). It should be noted, however, that the IQ x Work Motivation interaction was the only interaction that attained even marginal significance. Parallel full hierarchical regression results for the General Creativity criterion are reported in Table 30.  When all of the main effects for Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, IQ,  Openness and Work Motivation, and all of the two-way interactions were entered into the regression equation, the main effect for Openness remained significant, but the Divergent Thinking x IQ interaction became marginal ([3 = .13, p < .10).  The Divergent Thinking x IQ  interaction, however, was the only interaction to attain even marginal significance.  The presence of interaction terms in the regression equations for all four of the specific creativity criteria will be considered in the subsequent section on the validity of the Creative Management Model. 1 2  Managerial Creativity 145  Table 29 Hierarchical Regression of Global Change on Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, IQ, Openness and Work Motivation  Predictor  p  Significance of (3  Main Effects Entered on Step 1 Divergent Thinking  .14  <.05  Evaluative Thinking  .01  >.75  IQ  .09  >.10  Openness  .36  <.0001  Work Motivation  .04  >.50  2-Way Interactions Entered on Step 2 Divergent x Evaluative  .10  >.10  Divergent x IQ  .09  >.10  Divergent x Openness  -.04  >.50  Divergent x Motivation  .11  >.10  Evaluative x IQ  -.01  >.75  Evaluative x Openness  .02  >.75  Evaluative x Motivation  .02  >.50  IQ x Openness  -.09  >.25  IQ x Motivation  -.13  <.10  Openness x Motivation  -.01  >.75  R Change  Significance of R Change  .21  <.0001  .05  >.10  2  Multiple R = .51, R = .26; F(15, 196) = 4.63,/x.OOOl Adjusted Multiple R = .45, Adjusted R = .20 2  2  Note. Evaluative Thinking was measured using the Supervisory Practices Exercise.  2  Managerial Creativity 146 Table 30 Hierarchical Regression of General Creativity on Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, IQ, Openness and Work Motivation  Predictor  p  Significance ofp  Main Effects Entered on Step 1 Divergent Thinking  .08  >.25  Evaluative Thinking  -.05  >.25  IQ  .05  >.25  Openness  .42  <.0001  Work Motivation  -.04  >.50  2-Way Interactions Entered on Step 2 Divergent x Evaluative  -.01  >.75  Divergent x IQ  .13  <.10  Divergent x Openness  .00  >.75  Divergent x Motivation  -.04  >.50  Evaluative x IQ  .08  >.10  Evaluative x Openness  -.03  >.50  Evaluative x Motivation  .03  >.50  IQ x Openness  -.09  >.25  IQ x Motivation  -.02  >.75  Openness x Motivation  .06  >.25  R Change  Significance of R Change  .19  <.0001  .04  >.25  2  Multiple R = .48, R = .23; F(15, 197) = 3.94,p<.0001 Adjusted Multiple R = .42, Adjusted R = .17 2  2  Note. Evaluative Thinking was measured using the Supervisory Practices Exercise.  2  Managerial Creativity 147  Testing the Creative Management Model COMPARATIVE  ANALYSES  Using median splits to classify participants as low or high on the various predictor variables, a number of M A N O V A s and A N O V A s were performed on increasingly simplified versions of the Creative Management Model. Since homogeneity of covariance matrices is an assumption of M A N O V A , and homogeneity of variance is an assumption of A N O V A , all data sets were examined for violations of these assumptions before proceeding with the analyses. In the multivariate case, homogeneity of covariance matrices were tested using Box's M statistic. The null hypothesis of homogeneous covariance matrices was not rejected in any of the data sets (all Fs < 1.48, all ps > .05).  In the univariate case, homogeneity of variance was tested using  Bartlett's test. Again, the null hypothesis of homogeneity of variance was not rejected for any of the criterion variables in any of the data sets (all Fs < 2.06, all ps > .10).  Thus, we can feel  confident about the results of both the multivariate and univariate analyses of variance, and no corrections needed to be made to the significance tests.  13  First, a Divergent Thinking (low or high) x Evaluative Thinking (low or high) x Openness (low or high) x Work Motivation (low or high) M A N O V A was performed with the four specific creativity criteria as dependent variables. The data produced a reliable multivariate main effect for Openness [F(4, 93) = 2.93, p < .05]; no other main effects or interactions were significant. Follow-up univariate A N O V A s demonstrated that the multivariate result was due to a reliable main effect for Openness on the Global Change criterion [F(l, 96) = 7.81, /? < .01]. Participants high in Openness were rated higher on Global Change (M = .23) by their supervisors than were participants low in Openness (M = -.27). Next, Work Motivation was removed from the model because motivation is not hypothesized by the Creative Management Model to affect the potential for creativity, but rather In any case, almost all of the M A N O V A and A N O V A designs reported herein, except for the one-way analyses, involved equal cell ns, a circumstance under which A N O V A ( M A N O V A ) designs are robust to violations of homogeneity of variance (homogeneity of covariance matrices). 1 3  Managerial Creativity 148  it is hypothesized to impact, generally, the amount of (creative and uncreative) management work accomplished. When the four specific creativity criteria were used as dependent variables in a Divergent Thinking (low or high) x Evaluative Thinking (low or high) x Openness (low or high) M A N O V A , reliable multivariate main effects were obtained for Openness [F(4, 117) = 3.72, p < .01] and for Divergent Thinking [F(4, 117) = 2.81, p < .05]; in addition, there was a reliable Divergent Thinking x Evaluative Thinking interaction [F(4, 117) = 2.49, p < .05]. Univariate A N O V A s demonstrated that, again, the multivariate main effect for Openness stemmed from a reliable main effect for Openness on the Global Change criterion  [JF(1,  120) = 9.92, p < .005].  Participants who were high in Openness received higher ratings from their supervisors on the Global Change criterion (M = .34) than did participants low in Openness (M = -.19).  The  multivariate main effect for Divergent Thinking was also attributable to the Global Change criterion [F(l, 120) = 6.12, p < .05].  Participants high in Divergent Thinking received higher  ratings on Global Change (M = .29) than participants low in Divergent Thinking (M = -.13); this main effect for divergent thinking, however, should be interpreted in light of the interaction between Divergent Thinking and Evaluative Thinking, an effect also shown by univariate A N O V A s to be a reliable for the Global Change criterion [F(l, 120) = 4.67, p < .05]. In order to understand the interaction between Divergent Thinking and Evaluative Thinking, the simple main effects of Divergent Thinking were calculated within levels of Evaluative Thinking.  Among those who scored low on Evaluative Thinking, there was no  difference in the Global Change ratings received by those who scored high on Divergent Thinking (M = .01) and those who scored low on Divergent Thinking (M = -.04). Among those who scored high on Evaluative Thinking, however, the Global Change ratings received by those who scored high on Divergent Thinking (Af = .56) were significantly higher than the Global Change ratings received by those who scored low on Divergent Thinking (M = -.21). Next, with the participants categorized into the eight creative management types on the basis of their high or low standings on Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, and Openness,  Managerial Creativity 149  a one way M A N O V A was performed using creative management type as the predictor variable and the four specific creativity criteria as dependent variables. The significant M A N O V A [F(28, 816) = 2.23, p < .001) was followed up by one way ANOVAs, and a reliable effect was found only for the Global Change criterion [F(7, 204) = 5.19, p < .001]. Multiple comparisons using Tukey's Honest Significant Difference demonstrated that the participants categorized as Global Change Agents and Global Idea Generators on the basis of the predictor variables were rated higher—by their supervisors—on Global Change (Ms = .52 and .37 respectively) than were the participants categorized by the predictor variables as Incremental Idea Generators (M = -.46), Change Critics (M = -.41), and Change Inhibitors (M = -.42). From the Creative Management Model it had been hypothesized that the predictorclassified Global Change Agents and Global Idea Generators would score higher on the Global Change criterion than any of the other groups.  The data showed that the predictor-classified  Global Change Agents and Global Idea Generators did, in fact, score higher on the Global Change criterion than three of the other six groups. From the Creative Management Model, it had also been hypothesized (1) that the predictor-classified Global Change Agents, Global Idea Generators, Incremental Change Agents, and Incremental Idea Generators would score higher on the Incremental Change criterion than any of the other four groups; (2) that the Global Change Agents, Global Idea Generators, Change Facilitators and Change Enthusiasts would score higher on the Supporting Change criterion than any of the other four groups; and (3) that the Global Change Agents, Incremental Change Agents, Change Facilitators and Change Critics would score higher on the Assessing Feasibility criterion than any of the other four groups. None of these hypotheses was supported in the current study. HIERARCHICAL  REGRESSION  ANALYSES  Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were also undertaken by regressing the four specific creativity criteria onto continuous scores on Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness, Work Motivation, and the two-way interactions among these predictor variables. The  Managerial Creativity 150  main effects were entered on Step 1, and the interactions were entered on Step 2. The results of these regression analyses are given in Tables 31 through 34. The Global Change criterion was predicted by significant main effects for Divergent Thinking and Openness; the Incremental Change criterion was predicted by significant main effects for Evaluative Thinking and Openness; the Supporting Change criterion could not be reliably predicted from any of the predictor variables; and the Assessing Feasibility criterion was predicted by a significant main effect for Openness. It was hypothesized by the Creative Management Model that creative behaviour would be more predictable among managers high in work motivation than among managers low in work motivation.  In the regression analyses described earlier, none of the two-way interactions  involving Work Motivation were significant for any of the four specific creativity criteria indicating that the anticipated effect for Work Motivation could not be found at the level of the individual predictor variable. These previous regression analyses, however, were not able to test whether an optimal linear combination of the predictor variables was better able to predict creative management behaviour among managers high rather than low in Work Motivation. Thus, hierarchical regression analyses were undertaken separately for managers low (below the median) and high (above the median) on Work Motivation; the four specific creativity criteria were each regressed onto Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, and Openness (entered on Step 1) and the two-way interactions among these three predictor variables (entered on Step 2). The results of these regression analyses are presented in Tables 35 through 38.  Managerial Creativity 151  Table 31 Hierarchical Regression of Global Change on the Predictor Variables Included in the Creative Management Model  Predictor  P  Significance  Hypothesized Significant  R2  of p  Ps  Change  Significance of R Change  .21  <.0001  .01  >.50  Main Effects Entered on Step 1 Divergent Thinking  .17  <.05  Evaluative Thinking  .02  >.50  Openness  .36  <.0001  Work Motivation  .06  >.25  2  +  +  2-Way Interactions Entered on Step 2 Divergent x Evaluative  .11  >.10  Divergent x Openness  -.06  >.25  +  Divergent x Motivation  .04  >.50  +  Evaluative x Openness  -.01  >.75  Evaluative x Motivation  .02  >.75  Openness x Motivation  -.01  >.75  +  Multiple R = .47, R = .22, Adjusted R = .18; F(10,201) = 5.68,p<.0001 2  2  Note. + indicates that a significant positive beta weight was hypothesized. Evaluative Thinking was measured using the Supervisory Practices Exercise.  Managerial Creativity 152  Table 32 Hierarchical Regression of Incremental Change on the Predictor Variables Included in the Creative Management Model  Predictor  (3  Significance of (3  Hypothesized Significant (3s  Main Effects Entered on Step 1 Divergent Thinking  .01  >.75  Evaluative Thinking  .15  <.05  Openness  .17  <.05  Work Motivation  -.03  >.50  .10  >.10  Divergent x Openness  .02  >.75  Divergent x Motivation  .01  >.75  Evaluative x Openness  -.02  >.75  Evaluative x Motivation  -.02  >.75  Openness x Motivation  -.09  >.10  .06  <.05  .02  >.50  2  +  2-Way Interactions Entered on Step 2 Divergent x Evaluative  R Change  Significance ofR Change  2  Multiple R = .27, R = .07, Adjusted R = .03; F(10, 202) = 1.60, p >.10 2  2  Note. + indicates that a significant positive beta weight was hypothesized. Evaluative Thinking was measured using the Supervisory Practices Exercise.  Managerial Creativity 153  Table 33 Hierarchical Regression of Supporting Change on the Predictor Variables Included in the Creative Management Model  Predictor  (3  Significance of (3  Hypothesized Significant ps  Main Effects Entered on Step 1 Divergent Thinking  .01  >.75  Evaluative Thinking  .09  >.10  Openness  .13  >.10  Work Motivation  .02  >.75  .00  >.75  Divergent x Openness  -.01  >.75  Divergent x Motivation  .02  >.75  Evaluative x Openness  .00  >.75  Evaluative x Motivation  .02  >.50  Openness x Motivation  .00  >.75  .03  >.10  .00  >.75  2  +  2-Way Interactions Entered on Step 2 Divergent x Evaluative  R.2 Change  Significance ofR Change  Multiple R = .18, R = .03, Adjusted R = .-.02; F(10, 202) = 0.68, p>.50 2  2  Note. + indicates that a significant positive beta weight was hypothesized. Evaluative Thinking was measured using the Supervisory Practices Exercise.  Managerial Creativity 154  Table 34 Hierarchical Regression of Assessing Feasibility on the Predictor Variables Included in the Creative Management Model  Predictor  (3  Significance of (3  Hypothesized Significant (3s  Main Effects Entered on Step 1 Divergent Thinking  -.05  >.25  Evaluative Thinking  .10  >.10  Openness  .22  <.01  Work Motivation  -.04  >.50  .10  >.10  Divergent x Openness  -.13  <.10  Divergent x Motivation  .07  >.25  Evaluative x Openness  .03  >.50  Evaluative x Motivation  -.08  >.25  Openness x Motivation  .03  >.50  .05  <.05  .03  >.25  2  +  2-Way Interactions Entered on Step 2 Divergent x Evaluative  R Change  Significance ofR Change  2  Multiple R = .28, R = .08, Adjusted R = .03; F(10, 202) = 1.77, p<.10 2  2  Note. + indicates that a significant positive beta weight was hypothesized. Evaluative Thinking was measured using the Supervisory Practices Exercise.  Managerial Creativity 155  Table 35 Hierarchical Regression, at Two Levels of Work Motivation, of the Global Change Criterion on the Predictor Variables Included in the Creative Management Model Low  Motivation  High Motivation  Significance  Hypothesized Significant  P  ofp  ps  p  ofp  Divergent Thinking  .15  >.10  +  .20  <.10  Evaluative Thinking  .11  >.25  -.04  >.50  Openness  .36  <.0005  .38  <.0005  Predictor  Significance  Main Effects Entered on Step 1  +  R Change = .20, p < .0001  R Change = .17,p<.0005 2  2  2-Way Interactions Entered on Step 2 Divergent x Evaluative  .09  >.25  Divergent x Openness  -.07  >.25  Evaluative x Openness  .08  >.25  +  .12  >.10  -.03  >.75  -.07  >.25  R Change = m,p>.25  R Change = .01, p> .50  Multiple R = .44  Multiple R = .46  R = A9  R = .21  2  2  2  2  Adjusted R = .14  Adjusted R = .16  F(6, 98) = 3.87, p<. 005  F(6, 100) = 4.48, p < .0005  2  2  Note. + indicates that a significant positive beta weight was hypothesized. Evaluative Thinking was measured using the Supervisory Practices exercise.  Managerial Creativity 156  Table 36 Hierarchical Regression, at Two Levels of Work Motivation, of the Incremental Change Criterion on the Predictor Variables Included in the Creative Management Model Low  Motivation  High Motivation  Significance  Hypothesized Significant  P  ofp  ps  p  ofp  Divergent Thinking  -.04  >.50  +  .08  >.25  Evaluative Thinking  .20  <.10  .05  >.50  Openness  .24  <.05  .09  >.25  Predictor  Significance  Main Effects Entered on Step 1  R Change = .11, p < .01 2  R Change = . 03, p> . 25 2  2-Way Interactions Entered on Step 2 Divergent x Evaluative  .07  >.50  .12  >.25  Divergent x Openness  -.02  >.75  .02  >.75  Evaluative x Openness  -.05  >.50  .04  >.50  R Change = .00, p > .75  R Change = .02, p> .25  Multiple R = .34  Multiple R = .23  R = A2  R = .05  2  2  2  2  Adjusted R = .06  Adjusted R = .00  F(6, 98) = 3.87,p<.005  F(6, 100) = 0.93, p>. 25  2  2  Note. + indicates that a significant positive beta weight was hypothesized. Evaluative Thinking was measured using the Supervisory Practices exercise.  Managerial Creativity 157  Table 37 Hierarchical Regression, at Two Levels of Work Motivation, of the Supporting Change on the Predictor Variables Included in the Creative Management Model Low  Motivation  High  Significance  Hypothesized Significant  P  ofP  Ps  Divergent Thinking  -.04  Evaluative Thinking Openness  Predictor  Criterion  Motivation  Significance  P  ofP  >.50  .08  >.25  .09  >.25  .07  >.50  .15  >.10  .12  >.25  Main Effects Entered on Step 1  R Change = .03, p > .25 2  +  R Change = .03, p> .25 2  2-Way Interactions Entered on Step 2 Divergent x Evaluative  -.04  >.75  .03  >.75  Divergent x Openness  -.02  >.75  -.02  >.75  Evaluative x Openness  .03  >.75  .00  >.75  R Change = .00,p>.75  R Change = .00, p > .75  Multiple R = .18  Multiple R = .18  R = .03  R = .03  2  2  2  2  Adjusted R = .00  Adjusted R = .00  F(6, 98) = 0.56,/?>.75  F(6, 100) = 0.59, p > .50  2  2  Note. + indicates that a significant positive beta weight was hypothesized. Evaluative Thinking was measured using the Supervisory Practices exercise.  Managerial Creativity 158  Table 38 Hierarchical Regression, at Two Levels of Work Motivation, of the Assessing Feasibility Criterion on the Predictor Variables Included in the Creative Management Model Low  Motivation  High Motivation  Significance  Hypothesized Significant  (3  of(3  ps  Divergent Thinking  -.15  >.10  Evaluative Thinking  .22  <.05  Openness  .24  <.05  Predictor  Significance p  ofp  .09  >.25  -.01  >.75  .18  >.10  Main Effects Entered on Step 1  R Change = .12,p<.01 2  +  R Change = .03, p> .25 2  2-Way Interactions Entered on Step 2 Divergent x Evaluative  .09  >.25  .13  >.25  Divergent x Openness  -.13  >.10  -.14  >.25  Evaluative x Openness  .05  >.50  .05  >.50  R Change = .03,p>.25  R Change = .02, p > .50  Multiple R = .38  Multiple R = .23  R =  R = .05  2  2  2  2  A  4  Adjusted R = .09  Adjusted R = .00  F(6, 99) = 2.78,p<.05  F(6, 100) = 0.90,/?>.25  2  2  Note. + indicates that a significant positive beta weight was hypothesized. Evaluative Thinking was measured using the Supervisory Practices exercise.  Managerial Creativity 159  In no case, did the interaction terms entered on Step 2 add significantly to criterion prediction (all R  2  Change < .03, all ps > .25).  The main effects added significantly to the  prediction of Global Change at both high and low levels of Work Motivation (both R  2  > .16,  both ps < .0005). Conversely, the main effects did not add significantly to the prediction of Supporting Change at either high or low levels of Work Motivation (both R  2  < .04, both ps >  .25). In the prediction of both Incremental Change and Assessing Feasibility, however, the main effects added significant predictive power for managers low in Work Motivation, but not for managers high in Work Motivation (for Incremental Change, R  2  Motivation managers and R  2  = .11, p < .01 for Low Work  = .03, p > .25 for High Work Motivation managers; for Assessing  Feasibility, R = .12, p < .01 for Low Work Motivation managers and R 2  Work Motivation managers).  2  = .03, p > .25 for High  Thus, the differential regression results for high and low  motivation managers in the prediction of Incremental Change and Assessing Feasibility run contrary to the hypotheses from the Creative Management Model. In order to discern whether the variance in Incremental Change and Assessing Feasibility accounted for by the main effects was significantly higher among low motivation managers than among high motivation managers, for each of these two criterion variables, a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was set around the difference between the squared multiple correlation in the low motivation group and the squared multiple correlation in the high motivation group. These confidence intervals were constructed using the procedure recommended by Olkin and Finn (1995). In both cases, the 95% confidence interval crossed zero (95% CI for Incremental Change = -.04 to .20; 95% CI for Assessing Feasibility = -.04 to .21). Thus, although the variances in Incremental Change and Assessing Feasibility accounted for by Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, and Openness appeared to be larger for low motivation managers than for high motivation managers, these differences did not reach significance.  Managerial Creativity 160  CLASSIFICATION  HIT RATE  As a final test of the Creative Management Model, the participants were classified into creative management types in two ways: (1) on the basis of their criterion standings on Global Change, Supporting Change, and Assessing Feasibility; and (2) on the basis of their predictor standings on Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, and Openness. Median splits were used to determine the participants' standings (low or high) on all of the above classification variables (see Table 10 on page 107 for a detailed description of the two classification schemes). The cross-classification matrix is given in Table 39.  As can be seen from Table 39, for both the  predictors and the criteria, there were proportionately more people high on all of the dimensions (Global Change Agents) or low on all of the dimensions (Change Inhibitors) than there were people with mixed profiles; this proliferation of people in the extreme groups could be expected given the positive correlations among the predictor variables and the positive correlations among the criterion variables.  There was congruence between the criterion classification and the  predictor classification for 18.9% of the participants, and a large degree of this congruence is attributable to participants who were classified as Global Change Agents and Change Inhibitors. The degree of congruence between the criterion classifications and the predictor classifications was significantly higher than could be expected by chance (K = .05, p < .05), but in practical terms, the hit rate was not high. Furthermore, when participants were divided into two groups on the basis of a median split on Work Motivation scores, the hit rates were similar for the two groups; the hit rates were 18.1% for the group low in Work Motivation and 19.6% for the group high in Work Motivation. Thus contrary to the expectation from the Creative Management Model, the translation of traits and abilities into identifiable creative management behaviour did not seem to occur more readily for managers with high Work Motivation than for managers with low Work Motivation.  Managerial Creativity 161  co  ON  cn  cn  CN  NO  CN  00  CN  00  cn  o CN  T 3  CO  CN  «4!  CO  42  as  ND  NO  TJ^  O  1—I  NO rt  00  co o . s  (50  co  rt a o, o  O  CN  <N  ^H 45 O •H>  CU  a  rt co  (N  '  T——  ON  (N  CO  O  co CO  NO  -a  co O 3 T3  S  § 43  u "§  a.  u  CH  COOH  o  ^  co & CO tl rt  bp tt, CO  rt bO co  CN  OH  a o cu  rt  rt  o  CO  c  O  (N  (N  -H  rt  (M  cn  45  bp  '53 T3  C  rt .» co  rt §  S&  C  CO CH  Mc rD  cn  VO  43 ^ f i  (N  CN  (N  cn CN  O  o P  S fa  T3 i-i  —  2rt  43  bO TT  rt co  43  O  H  C  rt  <-\)  NO  CO  3 ° B O  5  M e rt  b0  co cj  2  42 rt  CN  NO  ON  6< CO  CI,  H  co  43  CO  4=  "T3  ort O O rt  rt  rt  bo  -a  CO bO 60  rt rt  rt  rt  h  Q  CO  rt  §  c a  c  CO  60  <  C  co bO  y  4=  £ u  rt  in  a  co  S  co  E  a o  C  O co  73  •c u rt CO to o co rt bO bO . t t bO . t t c I 1 43§ aI 43rt U5 "°43 U PH u  CO  43  8  s-e.  3  Managerial Creativity 162  CHAPTER 6 G E N E R A L DISCUSSION Three central questions were addressed by the research described in this thesis: (1) Does the theoretically-derived Creative Management Model have consensual validity in the sense that real-world managers find the model both compelling and consistent with their own conceptions of managerial creativity? (2) Does the theoretically-derived Creative Management Model have empirical validity in the sense that predictions from the model are upheld by empirical data? and (3) Do the individual-difference factors from the Creative Management Model have enough criterion-related validity to justify their use for personnel-selection purposes? CONSENSUAL  VALIDITY OF THE CREATIVE  MANAGEMENT  MODEL  In order to address the consensual validity of the Creative Management Model, four studies were undertaken with managers and academics. In the first study, 13 managers were given the opportunity to evaluate and critique the Creative Management Model.  A l l of the managers  reported that Evaluative Thinking and Openness made important contributions to managerial creativity, while all but one of the managers also reported that Divergent Thinking was important to managerial creativity.  Furthermore, despite the fact that, for the sake of simplicity, Work  Motivation was not presented as part of the Creative Management Model, two of the managers independently suggested that motivation was an additional important contributor to managerial creativity. In addition, the majority of the managers reported that the eight management types described in the Creative Management Model made sense to them, and that they could identify colleagues who resembled each of the management types. In the second study, 18 managers were given detailed descriptions of Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, and Openness, and were asked to write descriptions of the behaviours that they would expect to be displayed by persons having various combinations of these traits and abilities.  A substantial percentage of the managers wrote behavioural descriptions that were  Managerial Creativity 163  consistent with the corresponding behavioural descriptions from the Creative Management Model. In the third study, 15 managers were given behavioural descriptions of the eight management types from the Creative Management Model, and were asked to write down, for each behavioural description, the initials of a colleague who fit that description, and the combination of high and low levels of Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, and Openness that could be expected to lead to that behavioural description. For each behavioural description, a majority of the managers were able to identify a colleague whom they felt fit that description, and for all but one behavioural description, a majority of the managers also listed the expected combination of individual-difference traits. The combination of traits listed by managers clearly diverged from the expected combination of traits most often in response to the descriptions of Incremental Change Agents and Incremental Idea Generators. Finally, in the fourth study, 18 academics were given 24 critical incidents written by managers to represent managerial creativity, and were asked to indicate, for each critical incident, whether or not Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness to Change, Openness to Risk, Openness to Ambiguity, and Work Motivation each played a significant role in determining the behaviour described.  The academics indicated that each of the six individual-difference  factors was a significant determinant of a nontrivial proportion of the critical incidents (proportions ranged, on average, between 33% and 56% for the various individual difference factors). Collectively, the results of these four studies support the consensual validity of the Creative Management Model. Managers who were presented with the model endorsed the importance of the individual-difference factors included in the model.  Moreover, managers who were not  presented with the model, but were allowed to generate critical incidents representing their own conceptions of managerial creativity (minimally constrained by a general definition of a creative  Managerial Creativity 164  manager), generated critical incidents for which the individual difference factors from the Creative Management Model were deemed, by academics, to be important influences. Although there appeared to be less support for the behavioural descriptions of the management types included in the Creative Management Model than for the individualdifference factors included in the model, this was, at least partially, a side effect of the methods used in the various studies. The managers in Study 1, who critiqued the Creative Management Model, were being asked to passively respond to a model that was presented to them. The managers in Studies 2 and 3, on the other hand, who wrote behaviour descriptions for—and retranslated behavioural descriptions of—the creative management types, were being asked to actually generate aspects of the Creative Management Model. Upon reflection, we can expect that more people will agree with an idea than will independently produce that same idea; thus, the more passive method employed in Study 1 was bound to show higher endorsement rates. A concrete example of this effect is provided by a comparison of Study 1 and Study 3; in both cases, managers were asked if they could think of colleagues who matched the various management types described in the Creative Management Model.  The managers in Study 3,  however, had to go beyond a simple yes or no answer and actually provide the initials of an exemplary colleague for each creative management type. As can be seen from a comparison of Table 4 (on p. 62) and Table 7 (on p. 74), for some of the hypothesized management types, managers were less likely to be able to identify a specific colleague who exemplified the type than to be able to assert that such managers did exist. It would have been highly surprising if any of the managers in Study 2 were to have produced behavioural descriptions for the creative management types that corresponded perfectly with the behavioural descriptions generated by the present author, especially since the managers were not offered the distinction between radical and incremental change before they generated their behavioural descriptions. From this perspective, it is remarkable that in writing behavioural descriptions for the two creative management types high in Divergent Thinking but low in  Managerial Creativity 165  Openness, a few of the managers (two in one case, five in the other) alluded to the idea that these management types would only propose ideas that did not depart substantially from current practice. Although Studies 1 through 4 indicate that the Creative Management Model as a whole was endorsed by managers, it is clear that some parts of the model were more readily endorsed than others.  Clearly, the individual difference factors included in the Creative Management  Model were overwhelmingly endorsed, as were some of the behavioural descriptions, most particularly the descriptions of the Global Change Agents and the Change Inhibitors. If any part of the Creative Management Model could be considered contentious, it would be the behavioural descriptions generated by the present author to represent the two management types high in Divergent Thinking but low in Openness (i.e., the types labeled Incremental Change Agents and Incremental Idea Generators); these two behavioural descriptions  might be  considered  contentious in the sense that one or more participants in every study either had difficulty imagining the types of managers described, wrote behavioural descriptions that did not mesh particularly well with the author's descriptions, or attributed an unexpected combination of traits to these management types. The main issue seemed to be the question of whether there would be people high in divergent thinking, who by definition can generate many ideas, who would propose many incremental change ideas without proposing any radical change ideas.  And  conversely, the issue was whether someone who proposed only ideas for incremental change would be high in Divergent Thinking. These questions enter the realm of the empirical validity of the Creative Management Model, which will be discussed next in relation to Study 5. EMPIRICAL  VALIDITY  OF THE CREATIVE  MANAGEMENT  MODEL  In order to examine the empirical validity of the Creative Management Model, a fifth study was undertaken in which the Divergent Thinking Composite, Evaluative Thinking Battery, C R A M , Wonderlic Personnel Test, and KAI were administered to 221 managers. Criterion data —in the form of supervisory ratings on five creativity scales (Global Change, Incremental  Managerial Creativity 166  Change, Supporting Change, Assessing Feasibility and General Creativity) and a General Management Performance scale—were collected on 212 of the participant managers. In terms of the specific hypotheses from the Creative Management Model, some were supported while others were not.  As expected, analysis of variance and regression analyses  demonstrated that managers high in Openness received higher ratings from their supervisors on Global Change than did managers low in Openness. Also supported was the hypothesis that managers high in Divergent Thinking would receive higher ratings on Global Change than managers low in Divergent Thinking.  However, contrary to expectations, the effects of  Openness and Divergent Thinking were additive rather than interactive. That is, managers were not required to be high on both Openness and Divergent Thinking in order to get a high rating on Global Change; being high on either Openness or Divergent Thinking contributed in itself. This meant that, as expected, managers classified according to the predictor variables as Global Change Agents or Global Idea Generators (i.e., the two types of managers high in both Openness and Divergent Thinking) received the highest Global Change ratings, but because the effects of Openness and Divergent Thinking were additive rather than interactive, the Global Change ratings received by the Global Change Agents and Global Idea Generators were significantly higher than only three, rather than all six, of the other management types. Because there was no indication, in the current study, of an interaction between Divergent Thinking and Openness in predicting creative management behaviour, it is interesting that King et al. (1996) did find an interaction between divergent thinking and openness to experience in predicting the creative accomplishments of university students. Since it is unlikely that divergent thinking and openness interact in university students, but not in managers, the difference may have been due to the fact that King et al. used self-reports of creative accomplishments whereas the current study used the reports of others.  Self-reported accomplishments may represent  differences in the recall of creative behaviour rather than actual differences in creative behaviour (King et al., 1996), and individuals high in both divergent thinking and openness may have a  Managerial Creativity 167  tendency to recall an inordinate number of creative accomplishments compared to individuals low in divergent thinking and/or openness.  Even if the effects of divergent thinking and  openness are merely additive in the prediction of actual creative behaviour, individuals who are high in both divergent thinking and openness will be highly creative.  Since descriptions of  creative individuals include the idea that they have a sense of themselves as creative (see e.g., Barron & Harrington, 1981), and behaviours consistent with the self-concept are more easily recalled than behaviours not consistent with the self-concept (Kihlstrom & Hastie, 1997), it follows that creative individuals would more easily recall instances of themselves performing creatively.  Another possible mechanism for an inordinate recall of creative behaviour by  individuals who are high in both divergent thinking and openness is that divergent thinking allows one to generate many instances of past behaviour, and openness allows one to interpret many of these behaviours as instances of creativity. In any case, the possibility being suggested here is that divergent thinking and openness may have additive effects in predicting actual creative behaviour, but interactive effects in predicting the recall of creative behaviours. Future research will be needed in order to address this hypothesis. Another finding, present only in the analysis of variance results, was that the positive effect, discussed above, of Divergent Thinking on Global Change ratings was qualified by an unexpected interaction between Divergent Thinking and Evaluative Thinking such that the positive impact of high Divergent Thinking scores on Global Change ratings was present only for managers who were high in Evaluative Thinking; among managers who were low in Evaluative Thinking, Divergent Thinking scores made no difference to the Global Change ratings received. Why would managers have to be high in Evaluative Thinking in order for Divergent Thinking ability to affect Global Change ratings? A number of possibilities suggest themselves. Given the creative process literature, which suggests that problem exploration precedes idea generation in the problem-solving cycle (e.g., lohnson, 1955; Mintzberg et al., 1976; Simon, 1977), one possibility is that Divergent Thinking affects Global Change only for managers high in  Managerial Creativity 168  Evaluative Thinking because it is only the managers high in Evaluative Thinking who analyze the current situation in such a way as to see that a problem exists. Managers who construct problems (by imagining how currently satisfactory situations could be better) would, given high Divergent Thinking ability, naturally propose more ideas for global change than managers who do not construct problems.  Another possibility is that managers high in Divergent Thinking  generate ideas for Global Change, regardless of their level of Evaluative Thinking, but it is only the managers high in Evaluative Thinking who have the confidence to propose their ideas to others. A third possibility is that the supervisors who filled out the criterion rating forms have confounded quantity with quality by giving managers high ratings on Global Change only if they both proposed many ideas for radical change, and the ideas proposed were good ones. In terms of the other specific creativity criteria, it was expected, according to the Creative Management Model, that managers  high on Divergent Thinking would receive  higher  supervisory ratings on Incremental Change, that managers high in Openness would receive higher supervisory ratings on Supporting Change, and that managers high on Evaluative Thinking would receive higher supervisory ratings on Assessing Feasibility.  None of these  hypothesized effects for the Incremental Change, Supporting Change, and Assessing Feasibility criteria were born out by the analysis of variance or regression results. It is not surprising that no effect was found for Evaluative Thinking on the Assessing Feasibility criteria since the predictive power of the Evaluative Thinking measure was severely curtailed by range restriction and low reliability. Since the bivariate correlation between Evaluative Thinking and Assessing Feasibility was small, but marginally significant, and its fully-disattenuated counterpart was considerably larger, it may be that a more challenging and more reliable measure of Evaluative Thinking would produce the expected analysis of variance and regression results. Since both the Divergent Thinking and Openness measures had satisfactory psychometric properties, the explanations for their lack of impact on the Incremental Change and Supporting Change criteria, respectively, must be sought elsewhere.  Even in looking at the bivariate  Managerial Creativity 169  correlation, Divergent Thinking bore no significant relationship to the Incremental Change criterion. This finding reflects the consensual validity studies, discussed earlier, from which the contentious issue arose as to whether or not managers who propose ideas for incremental change, but not global change, are high in divergent thinking. The empirical data from Study 5 sheds light on this issue by indicating that the managers who received high supervisory ratings on Incremental Change had no higher or lower divergent thinking ability than those who received low supervisory ratings on Incremental Change.  It, thus, appears that Divergent Thinking,  though important to Global Change, is not a predictive factor in Incremental Change. Since the Global Change and Incremental Change criteria were both designed to measure the tendency to propose ideas, with the difference being simply in the radicalness or scope of the ideas, the results here raise the question of what, exactly, is being measured by the Divergent Thinking Composite. Recall that the Divergent Thinking Composite was scored for fluency only based on Kogan's (1983) conclusion that "quality" scores (including flexibility, originality, and elaboration) correlate so strongly with fluency scores (which measure only the quantity of responses) that a strong case can be made for exclusive reliance on the more easily scored fluency index. It has also been suggested that in taking divergent thinking tests, most people write down common or obvious answers first, and that the answers become more original further down the response list as common ideas are exhausted. Fluency and originality, therefore, are correlated because the longer the response list, the more of them are likely to be original. An argument can be made that ideas for incremental change are likely to be more common than ideas for global change; that is, more people will think of ways to improve a system than will envision an entirely new system. Given that every manager in the current study listed at least some ideas in response to every exercise in the Divergent Thinking Composite, it may be that if incremental change ideas are common types of ideas, then being able to write more lengthy lists of ideas (that get into the realm of the uncommon) in response to a divergent thinking exercise would not help one to propose more incremental change ideas. If ideas for global change are more uncommon,  Managerial Creativity 170  on the other hand, it would explain why being able to produce long lists of ideas (that get into the realm of the uncommon) in response to a divergent thinking exercise would predict one's tendency to propose ideas for global change. In explaining why Divergent Thinking is predictive of Global Change, but not of Incremental Change, another, completely different, possibility is that managers who propose ideas for global change are usually bringing forward their own ideas while managers who propose ideas for incremental change are often bringing forward suggestions for improvement from their work team. If such were the case, the ability to think of many ideas oneself would be relevant to the Global Change criterion, but not to the Incremental Change criterion. Openness, though not predictive of the Supporting Change criterion in the analysis of variance or regression results, did have a marginally-significant, though small, positive bivariate correlation with Supporting Change. There seem to be two possible explanations for the lack of a stronger relationship between Openness and Supporting Change. First, since the Openness scale appears to be psychometrically sound—the evidence for this coming from its internal consistency and ability to predict other criterion scales—it may be that openness, alone, truly is not very important in the prediction of change-support behaviour.  If openness is not a very  important predictor, it may be that other, unmeasured, individual-difference factors, such as agreeableness, have a stronger relationship with change-support behaviour, or it may be that change-support behaviour cannot be well-predicted from any individual-difference factors because relationship factors (e.g., friendship) and situational factors (e.g., department politics) are more important correlates of the tendency to lend support to others' change initiatives than are individual differences. Second, although the Openness scale appeared psychometrically sound, it could be that the Supporting Change criterion suffered from psychometric shortcomings that limited its ability to correlate with the Openness scale.  In support of this possibility, it is noteworthy that the  Supporting Change scale had the highest mean (82.2% of the total possible score) and lowest  Managerial Creativity 171  variance of any of the specific criterion scales. In fact, a repeated measures A N O V A indicated that the mean ratings on Supporting Change and Assessing Feasibility were significantly higher than the mean ratings on Global Change and Incremental Change [F(3,477) = 413.40, p< .001). Thus, restriction of range due to a ceiling effect in the Supporting Change scale could be part of the reason for the absence of correlation between Openness and Supporting Change.  The  Supporting Change items upon which the managers were rated may not have been difficult enough in the sense that the majority of participating managers appear to have exhibited the behaviours referred to in the items. This ceiling effect for Supporting Change may have been accentuated in the current sample because the managers who participated in the study were volunteers and, thus, may have been predisposed to supportive behaviour in general, whether it be supporting change or supporting research. The Creative Management Model also hypothesized that in predicting the criterion variables, all of the anticipated main effects for the predictor variables would be qualified by interactions with Work Motivation; that is, Divergent Thinking and Openness would each interact with Work Motivation in predicting Global Change; Divergent Thinking would interact with Work Motivation in predicting Incremental Change; Openness would interact with Work Motivation in predicting Supporting Change; and Evaluative Thinking would interact with Work Motivation in predicting Assessing Feasibility. The idea behind these propositions was that traits and abilities give managers creative potential, but it would only be the managers who felt motivated at work who would translate that potential into actual creative behaviour. Despite the fact that none of the anticipated interactions involving Work Motivation were supported by the analysis of variance or regression results, the matter was further explored by undertaking separate regression analyses for managers high and low in Work Motivation.  The joint analysis of  variance and regression results undertaken earlier had examined the interactions, with Work Motivation, of individual predictor variables. By undertaking separate regression analyses for managers high and low in Work Motivation and looking at the differences in the squared  Managerial Creativity 172  multiple correlations produced for the two groups, it was possible to examine the interactions, with Work Motivation, of optimal linear combinations of predictor variables. When this was done, Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking and Openness, as a set, predicted a significant amount of the variance in both Incremental Change and Assessing Feasibility for managers low in Work Motivation, but not for Managers high in Work Motivation, although the differences between the squared multiple correlations were not of sufficient magnitude to be significant. These suggestive—though nonsignificant—differences in squared multiple correlations run contrary to the Creative Management Model's prediction that creative behaviour would be more predictable from traits and abilities for managers high in Work Motivation than for managers low in Work Motivation. Given that Work Motivation is intuitively related to conscientiousness, these results are consistent, however, with King et al.'s (1996) finding that in an undergraduate population, divergent thinking was associated with higher levels of creative accomplishments only among students low in conscientiousness.  In light of King et al.'s finding, what the current  results suggest is that, contrary to the idea that only managers high in Work Motivation can translate their traits and abilities into action, managers high in Work Motivation may be less in need of their traits and abilities because they will perform well regardless. How they accomplish this is another question; do they simply work longer and harder, or do they compensate for their weaknesses by teaming up with people who have the relevant traits? The present study cannot address this question, but it would make an interesting topic for future research. Given the number of hypotheses from the Creative Management Model that were left unsupported by the current analyses, it is not surprising that when managers were classified into creative management types both on the basis of their criterion standings, and on the basis of their predictor standings, the degree of congruence between the two classification schemes was disappointing, though statistically greater than could be expected by chance. In summary, the present research did not offer strong empirical support for the Creative Management Model as currently constituted. Global Change, the criterion that probably comes  Managerial Creativity 173  closest to the t y p i c a l understanding o f creativity, was enhanced, as expected, b o t h b y h i g h scores o n D i v e r g e n t T h i n k i n g , a n d b y h i g h scores o n Openness. the e x p e c t e d  T h e r e was n o e v i d e n c e , h o w e v e r , o f  interaction between D i v e r g e n t T h i n k i n g and O p e n n e s s whereby h i g h scores o n  G l o b a l C h a n g e w o u l d require both h i g h D i v e r g e n t T h i n k i n g and h i g h O p e n n e s s . the  creativity  demonstrate  criteria specifically any  of  the  connected  anticipated  to  effects.  the  Creative Management  M o r e o v e r , contrary to  A n d the rest o f Model  expectations,  did  not  creative  b e h a v i o u r was not m o r e predictable f r o m the measured traits a n d abilities for managers h i g h i n W o r k M o t i v a t i o n than for managers l o w i n W o r k M o t i v a t i o n ; i n fact, there was  suggestive  e v i d e n c e that, i f anything, creative b e h a v i o u r was more predictable for managers l o w i n W o r k Motivation.  D e s p i t e the failure to find e m p i r i c a l support for the specific hypotheses f r o m the C r e a t i v e M a n a g e m e n t M o d e l , w h e n disentangled f r o m these specific hypotheses, s o m e o f the predictor measures d e v e l o p e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the C r e a t i v e M a n a g e m e n t M o d e l d i d have  substantial  success as general predictors o f creative management behaviour.  PREDICTIVE  VALIDITY  THE OPENNESS SCALE VERSUS THE K A I T h e O p e n n e s s scale and the K A I were h i g h l y correlated, suggesting that they  represent  alternative measures o f the same construct, w i t h the O p e n n e s s scale h a v i n g slightly, t h o u g h not significantly higher validity coefficients measures.  (bivariate correlations) for p r e d i c t i n g all o f the criterion  G i v e n that one o f the purposes o f the current study was to find a set o f instruments  useful for the selection o f managers w h o w i l l be creative o n the j o b , it c a n be asserted that the Openness validities  scale w o u l d be better that  are equivalent  nontransparency.  to  suited for these purposes. those  o f the  K A I , while  T h e Openness p r o v i d i n g the  scale  provides  a d d e d benefit  of  A s for transparency, the K A I consists o f 33 items, 32 o f w h i c h measure the  trait o f interest (the first i t e m is not scored).  F o r a person taking the K A I , it is o b v i o u s what is  b e i n g measured, m a k i n g it easy for applicants to tailor their responses to the requirements o f the  Managerial Creativity 174  job for which they are applying. The 24 items in the Openness scale, on the other hand, are embedded amidst 100 other extraneous items covering the whole range of personality domains; thus, it would be extremely difficult for an applicant to determine what, exactly, is being measured. It must be kept in mind, however, that the KAI was not designed for personnel selection purposes. Rather, it was designed as a training tool to be used in helping managers to understand their own approaches toward innovation, and the approaches of their colleagues.  For the  purposes of training, the transparency of a scale is less important, and the K A I is probably perfectly adequate as a training tool. DIVERGENT THINKING VERSUS IQ As anticipated, Divergent Thinking significantly predicted the two prototypical creativity scales (Global Change and General Creativity), whereas IQ was predictive of only one of these two variables, and even then only marginally so. It will be recalled that it is widely believed that above a certain threshold level of IQ, creativity is not related to IQ (Geis, 1988a), but that creativity is strongly associated with IQ when the full range of both variables is assessed (Barron & Harrington, 1981). Managers, being in the upper end of the IQ distribution, were subject to the threshold effect that makes IQ and creativity independent in many professional groups. Aside from any potential impact of a threshold effect, the fact that managers are in the upper end of the IQ distribution automatically suggests that range restriction acted to limit the potential validity of IQ for predicting managerial creativity.  With respect to the Divergent  Thinking Composite, the lack of general population norms makes it impossible to estimate the amount of range restriction in the current management sample. Given the moderate correlation between Divergent Thinking and IQ, it is almost certain that the variance of Divergent Thinking scores was somewhat curtailed in the current sample.  Given current management selection  practices (which commonly include IQ tests, but rarely include divergent thinking tests), however, it is unlikely that the Divergent Thinking Composite exhibited as much range  Managerial Creativity 175  restriction as the Wonderlic Personnel Test.  Nevertheless, both of these measures might  generally be more predictive in a less restricted sample of management candidates (the target population for a management selection instrument).  For Divergent Thinking, however, the  predictive benefits of a less restricted sample might be offset by the fact that Divergent Thinking was more predictive of creative management behaviour among intellectually superior managers than among managers lower in IQ. The predictive validity of Divergent Thinking, thus, might not increase in a more diverse sample. THE CONTRIBUTION OF IQ IQ made a contribution to the prediction of creative management behaviour, not so much in terms of its independent effects, but in terms of its interactive effects.  The interaction of  Divergent Thinking and IQ contributed significantly to the prediction of General Creativity such that Divergent Thinking was more predictive of General Creativity for highly intelligent managers than for less intelligent managers.  This finding is reminiscent of Runco's (1986b)  finding that divergent thinking tests were predictive of creative performance in gifted, but not in nongifted students.  As suggested earlier with regard to the analysis of variance interaction  between Divergent Thinking and Evaluative Thinking in the prediction of Global Change scores, it may be that managers high in both convergent and divergent thinking abilities display particularly high levels of creative behaviour because they are able to use their convergent thinking skills to "discover" problems that they can then set their divergent thinking skills to work on solving. The failure of IQ, alone, to significantly predict the General Creativity criteria suggests that, at least among managers, convergent skills alone, in the absence of divergent skills, are not enough to produce creative behaviour. IQ also interacted with Work Motivation, but in this case the interaction made a significant contribution to the prediction of Global Change; IQ was less predictive of Global Change for highly motivated managers than for less motivated managers. This result is consistent with the earlier regression results which demonstrated a tendency for the whole set of predictor variables  Managerial Creativity 176  from the Creative Management Model to be less predictive of the Incremental Change and Assessing Feasibility criteria for highly motivated managers than for less motivated managers. Given that work motivation is intuitively related to conscientiousness, this result is also reminiscent  of King et al.'s  (1996) finding that in a sample  of university students,  conscientiousness was positively related to creative accomplishments only among the students low in divergent thinking ability. The conclusion which again suggests itself is that it may be possible for a person with limited prerequisite traits and abilities to achieve high levels of creative performance through sheer dedication. As an individual variable, IQ significantly predicted the scale measuring critical thinking (Assessing Feasibility), while Divergent Thinking was not significantly predictive of this scale. In fact the difference in predictive validities between IQ and Divergent Thinking was itself significant.  It is not at all surprising that IQ was more predictive of Assessing Feasibility than  was Divergent Thinking because critical thinking is a convergent task rather than a divergent task. T H E RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIVERGENT THINKING AND OPENNESS In previous validity studies of divergent thinking tests, partial correlations between divergent thinking and the creativity criterion have sometimes been calculated, controlling for the effect of IQ (see, e.g., Milgram & Milgram, 1976; Runco, 1986c). Presumably, the reasoning behind this choice of control variable has been the assumption that divergent thinking is a cognitive variable and that any confounding of its relationship with creative behaviour is, thus, most likely to be attributable to some other cognitive variable, especially one like IQ that has demonstrated links to creative behaviour. In the current analyses, Divergent Thinking correlated approximately equally with IQ and Openness, but the relationship between Divergent Thinking and creative management behaviour was due more to shared variance with Openness than to shared variance with IQ (as might be expected given the higher correlation of the creativity criteria with Openness than with IQ). This finding suggests that divergent thinking may not be a  Managerial Creativity 177  purely cognitive variable, but rather may involve some combination of cognitive and affective influences, with the affective influences being more highly related to creative behaviour. It is interesting to consider the role that openness plays in performance on divergent thinking tests.  One possibility is that individuals low in openness censor their responses to  divergent thinking problems, either at the preconscious or at the conscious level.  At the  preconscious level, censoring would take the form of preventing oneself from even becoming consciously aware of unusual thoughts; at the conscious level, censoring would take the form of preventing oneself from actually writing down unusual ideas that have come into consciousness. Three other potential explanations for the relationship between openness and divergent thinking have been suggested by McCrae (1987). First McCrae suggested that open and closed individuals may not actually differ on true divergent thinking ability, but may differ on divergent thinking test performance because open individuals are more intrigued by the tasks presented on divergent thinking tests. If open individuals are more interested in, for example, generating the similarities between a book and a car, intrinsic motivation may explain their superior performance on such tasks. Second, McCrae suggested that open individuals (who are noted for their intellectual and fantasy lives) may have developed their intellectual capacities, especially the capacity for divergent thinking, through a lifetime of practice. That is, open individuals, by exercising their cognitive faculties, may have discovered or maintained skills that were lost to closed individuals. Third, in an explanation that reverses the heretofore implied causative direction, McCrae suggested that individuals who have flexible cognitive processes may develop an appreciation for novelty  and varied experience  (i.e., become  open), just as individuals with particular  competencies tend to develop corresponding vocational interests (Holland, 1985). The reader may recall that the Openness scale and the Divergent Thinking Composite were originally designed to be orthogonal, and maintained this orthogonality upon cross-validation in  Managerial Creativity 178  an undergraduate student sample. The Openness scale and the Divergent Thinking Composite failed, however, to maintain this orthogonality in the current management sample. The positive relationship between Openness and Divergent Thinking found in the current study supports previous research showing that openness and divergent thinking are positively related (King et al., 1996; McCrae, 1987). It follows that if one is interested in the independent contribution of divergent thinking to creative performance, it is important to control for not only IQ, but also openness. To the knowledge of this author, King et al. (1996) are the only researchers who have taken this approach.  Consistent with the present research, King et al. found that although  divergent thinking and openness clearly overlapped, each explained some variance in creative accomplishments independent of the other. DIVERGENT THINKING, EVALUATIVE THINKING, OPENNESS, AND W O R K MOTIVATION The four predictor variables included in the Creative Management Model (i.e., Divergent Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Openness, and Work Motivation) were able to account for 21 % of the variance in Global Change, 6% of the variance in Incremental Change, 3% of the variance in Supporting Change, 5% of the variance in Assessing Feasibility, and 19% of the variance in General Creativity.  Openness was the best overall predictor, making reliable independent  contributions to the prediction of Global Change, Incremental Change, Assessing Feasibility, and General Creativity. In addition, Divergent Thinking made a reliable independent contribution to the prediction of Global Change. Although Evaluative Thinking and Work Motivation did not make reliable independent contributions to the prediction of any of the creativity criteria, both measures were hindered by reliability problems, and corrections for attenuation due to this predictor unreliability indicate that both variables—but particularly Evaluative Thinking—might have more to contribute to the prediction of creative management behaviour if they were measured in a more reliable manner.  Managerial Creativity 179  DIVERGENT THINKING AND OPENNESS IN AGGREGATION As  an aggregate,  Divergent  T h i n k i n g and Openness produced useful validities,  whether Rs  w e i g h t e d e q u a l l y (rs = .42 a n d .41) o r a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r r e g r e s s i o n w e i g h t s ( a d j u s t e d m u l t i p l e =  .44  a n d .43),  General  i n the p r e d i c t i o n o f the t w o p r o t o t y p i c a l creativity  Creativity,  respectively.  Clearly  the  obtained  criteria, G l o b a l C h a n g e  validity  coefficients  reflect  and  some  c a p i t a l i z a t i o n o n c h a n c e d u e to the s e l e c t i o n o f the t w o m o s t p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s f r o m a m o n g a number  o f potential  predictors.  It  is n o t e d that the  obtained multiple  correlations  have  been  a d j u s t e d to c o m p e n s a t e f o r c a p i t a l i z a t i o n o n c h a n c e i n the w e i g h t i n g o f a f i x e d set o f p r e d i c t o r s ; no  corresponding adjustment  currently exists to c o m p e n s a t e f o r c a p i t a l i z a t i o n  selection of predictor variables.  o n chance in  the  T h u s , the c o m b i n a t i o n o f D i v e r g e n t T h i n k i n g a n d O p e n n e s s c a n  b e e x p e c t e d to correlate slightly less h i g h l y ( a l t h o u g h still s i g n i f i c a n t l y ) i n future s a m p l e s t h a n i n the current s a m p l e u p o n w h i c h the p r e d i c t o r s e l e c t i o n w a s b a s e d .  The  reliability  s c a l e (.84)  estimates  are c e r t a i n l y  f o r the D i v e r g e n t  regression-weighted  existing management  a n d the  Openness  adequate for personnel d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g purposes, and aggregations  these t w o measures o n l y increase i n reliability two  T h i n k i n g C o m p o s i t e (.81)  aggregates).  The  (.86  f o r b o t h the u n i t - w e i g h t e d  addition  of  one  of  these  of  aggregate a n d the  aggregate  measures  to  selection practices is, thus, r e c o m m e n d e d f o r settings in w h i c h there is a  d e s i r e to i d e n t i f y m a n a g e m e n t c a n d i d a t e s w h o h a v e c r e a t i v e potential.  PREDICTION OF GENERAL MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE The  General  Management  individual-difference  variables  Performance  measured in  criterion  the  current  was  not  study.  predictable Given  past  from  any  r e s e a r c h , the  v a r i a b l e s m o s t l i k e l y to h a v e p r e d i c t e d G e n e r a l M a n a g e m e n t P e r f o r m a n c e w e r e I Q a n d Thinking.  W i t h r e g a r d to I Q ,  studies  management  of  roughly  .25  lack  a  of  performance,  to .30 b e t w e e n  significant  Hunter  and Hunter reported  between  IQ  a meta-analysis  uncorrected validity  general cognitive ability  relationship  (1984), in  and  General  of  coefficients  a n d rated m a n a g e m e n t Management  of  the two  Divergent  515  validity  ranging  from  performance.  The  Performance  in  the  Managerial Creativity 180  current study, however, is consistent with other research using an extended version of the same General Management Performance scale (e.g., Hakstian et al., 1991) which has found no significant relationship between IQ and this measure of management performance.  More  surprising, however, is the lack of a significant relationship between Divergent Thinking and General Management Performance, since, in a previous validity study, Hakstian et al. (1991) found Divergent Thinking to be a significant predictor of the extended version of the same General Management Performance scale. Given that neither IQ nor Divergent Thinking significantly predicted General Management Performance in the current study, the possibility that there were psychometric weaknesses in the General Management Performance scale must be considered. As with the Supporting Change criterion, discussed earlier, the General Management Performance scale appears to have experie