Intrinsic or extrinsic motivations for hospitality employees’ creativity: The moderating role of organization-level regulatory focus

International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 133–141

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

Intrinsic or extrinsic motivations for hospitality employees’ creativity: The moderating role of organization-level regulatory focus Jung-Hua Chang a,1 , Chih-Ching Teng b,∗,2 a b

Institute of Marketing Communication, National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan Dept. of Restaurant, Hotel, and Institutional Management, Fu-Jen Catholic University, Taiwan

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 28 August 2016 Accepted 10 October 2016 Keywords: Creative personality Transformational leadership Organizational regulatory focus Creativity Job performance

a b s t r a c t This study predicts that the intrinsic (creative personality) and extrinsic motivators (transformational leadership) reinforce employee creativity and job performance in the hospitality industry. More importantly, the positive moderating effects of organizational regulatory focus (promotion and prevention) on employee creativity are included in proposed model. To test the mode, data (339 employees and 72 supervisors) was collected from 62 Taiwan international hotels in the summer of 2014. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) were conducted to examine measurement model and hypotheses. The HLM results confirmed the effects of individual-level factors. However, an organizational promotion focus only enhances the extrinsic creative motivator. The intrinsic creative motivator was reinforced by an organizational prevention focus. The research findings suggest that hospitality managers should consider both individual- and organizational-level factors simultaneously. Indeed, the organizational goals could be set depending on the features of the department. Further discussions and implications are elucidated. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Creativity is typically regarded as the generation of novel and useful ideas (Amabile, 1983, 1996; Amabile et al., 1996). Creativity, which is usually manifested in an overall firm strategy and is a source of competitive advantage, is related to an individual employee’s efficiency and job performance (Amabile et al., 2004; Gong et al., 2009; Hon, 2013). The importance of employee creativity has been noted by many scholars and practitioners across the sectors (Borovskaia and Dedova, 2014; Kattara and El-Said, 2014; Lin and Wong, 2014; Wong and Ladkin, 2008). The hospitality industry has also focused on employee creativity because firms in this industry are currently facing a highly competitive and changing environment that requires a creative and innovative workforce to deliver quality service and even to delight customers (Hon, 2013; Hon and Lui, 2016; Kim and Lee, 2013; Wang et al., 2014). For example, restaurants rely on innovative menus and new products

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.-H. Chang), [email protected] (C.-C. Teng). 1 Address: No. 70, Lien-hai Rd., Kaohsiung 80424, Taiwan. 2 Address: No. 510 Zhongzheng Rd., Xinzhuang Dist., New Taipei City 24205, Taiwan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.10.003 0278-4319/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

to satisfy customers; and hotel firms need creative ideas and innovation to improve service processes and service quality (Li and Hsu, 2016). Prior research has indicated that employee creativity is motivated by intrinsic and extrinsic factors. For instance, Gough (1979) developed a creative personality scale (CPS) that measures an individual’s creative abilities. Oldham and Cummings (1996), who applied the CPS, demonstrated that when employees’ characteristics are creativity-relevant, their production of creative works exceeded that of their less creative colleagues. Conversely, in terms of the extrinsic motivator for creativity, a supervisor’s leadership style may play a key role in fostering employee creativity (Gong et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2014). Transformational leadership, a contemporary leadership theory, has been studied intensively (Bass, 1991; Liao and Chuang, 2007; Lowe et al., 1996; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Wang et al., 2014). Transformational supervisors motivate followers to achieve goals by inspiring confidence and self-reinforcement (Bass et al., 1987; Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Dvir et al., 2002). Furthermore, several scholars suggest that employees become more creative when they are motivated to achieve goals with self-reinforcement rather than by a reciprocal relationship which focused on external rewards (Amabile et al., 2004; Bass, 1985; Shalley and Gilson, 2004; Shin and Zhou, 2003). However, ignoring the effects of organizational factors might result in overstating the effects of individual-level motivators.

134

J.-H. Chang, C.-C. Teng / International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 133–141

For example, recruiting employees with creative personalities or fostering their creativity are good ways to inspire creativity; however, the organizational context, such as atmosphere, culture and regulation might reinforce or reduce the effects of creative personality and leadership. It has been noted that many creativity studies tend to focus either on individual creativity while ignoring the contextual influence of the group or on group creativity while ignoring individual factors within the group (Hon and Lui, 2016). Numerous hospitality studies investigating employee creativity simply focus on the effect of individual-level factors (Slåtten and Mehmetoglu, 2011; Tracey and Hinkin, 1994; Wang et al., 2014; Wong and Pang, 2003; Wong and Ladkin, 2008) rather than looking into organizational-level factors simultaneously. The current study, therefore, argues that the individual-level intrinsic and extrinsic creative motivators are affected by organizational goals. Higgins (1997) applied his regulatory focus theory to identify the processes by which people align themselves with appropriate goals and standards (Brockner and Higgins, 2001; Higgins, 1997, 1998; Higgins et al., 2001). Specifically, people may engage in selfregulation with a promotion or prevention focus depending on how they approach pleasure and avoid pain. People with a promotion focus typically pursue their ideal selves, dreams and aspirations, thereby heightening the important of potential gains. In contrast, people with a prevention focus emphasize their sense of duty and responsibility, thereby increasing the importance of avoiding losses. Indeed, regulatory focus theory not only applies to individual but also to organizational goals (Higgins, 1997, 1998). When an organization set its goal on promotion or prevention focus, as individuals do, it will change its organizational culture or climate. An organization’s regulatory focus on promotion or prevention would likely lead employees to care more about positive outcomes or the absence of negative outcomes. This study, therefore, argues that an organizational regulatory focus is a critical organizational moderator of individual employee creativity. Finally, the relationship between employee creativity and job performance in the hospitality industry is examined directly in this research. As mentioned above, creativity has been identified a source of corporate competitive advantage; however, little research in hospitality employee creativity has confirmed the relationship between creativity and job performance. The current empirical study is thus expected to fill this gap in the hospitality literature. To sum up, this study attempted to contribute to the hospitality literature by integrating individual- and organizational-level factors into employee creative performance. Specifically, this study intended to confirm the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic creative motivators on hospitality employee creativity and job performance. More importantly, this study is the first research to examine the moderating effect of organizational-level goals on employee creativity. The results of this study can provide insights into leadership and human resource management for hospitality managers to improve employee creativity and job performance. On the following section, the related studies would be reviewed to develop the hypothetical model. Next, on the methodology section, the processes of data collection, measurement of two-level variables, and data analyses are described. Finally, theoretical contributions, practical implications and limitations of this study are provided at the last three sections.

2. Literature review 2.1. Effects of employee creativity Creativity, as mentioned, could be defined as the production of novel solutions to problems related to any human activity

(Amabile, 1983, 1996). In the past, creativity was usually associated with artistic industries such as film, painting, music, and poetry; however, it has also been recognized as a factor critical to an organization’s survival and competitiveness (George and Zhou, 2001; Gong et al., 2009; Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Zhou, 1998). In the hospitality industry, employee creativity has been considered as a critical factor to the success of an organization. There have been numerous studies focusing on external motivators or factors influencing employee creativity in the hospitality industry. For instance, Wong and Pang (2003) identified 5 job-related motivators to creativity in the hotel industry from perspectives of employees and supervisors through in-depth interviews and a dichotomous selection test. Wang et al. (2014) identified that transformational leadership positively affects employee creativity via creative role identity and creative self-efficacy. Kattara and El-Said (2014) found several internal barriers of the company that could slow down the implementation of creativity in the Egyptian hotel market. Wong and Ladkin (2008) also indicated that job-related motivators are positively related to employee creativity in the Hong Kong hotel industry. Additionally, intrinsic motivators to the effect of creativity have been widely discussed in previous studies. Oldham and Cummings (1996) argued that people who are creativity-relevant perform a better creative outcome. Similarly, Coelho and Augusto (2010) investigated frontline service employees and found that both job complexity and work relationship influence employee creativity through factors such as intrinsic motivation and role stress. In Kim and Lee’s (2013) study, the orientation toward learning goals and knowledge collection are identified significantly enhancing service employees’ creative behavior. In the context of hospitality higher education, Lin and Wong (2014) confirmed the mediating effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on the relationship between classroom learning environment and creativity among hospitality students. According to the results of previous studies, both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators are recognized as critical antecedents of employee creativity. 2.2. Creative personality, TFL and employee creativity Creative personality is defined as the core personal traits and dispositions correlate with creativity (Gough, 1979; Oldham and Cummings, 1996). Intrinsic motivators are defined as persons who engage in activities that are congruent with their interests or personal sense of satisfaction and fulfillment (Hennessey and Amabile, 1988). Putting together, this study argues that creative personality be regarded as an intrinsic motivator for creativity. A large body of literature has indicated that identifying a set of personal characteristics and attributes are positively associated with creative achievement, such as attraction to complexity, intuition, aesthetic sensitivity, toleration of ambiguity, and self-confidence (Barron and Harrington, 1981; Davis, 1989; Oldham and Cummings, 1996). To identify personal creative characteristics, Gough (1979) developed a creative personality scale (CPS). Moreover, Oldham and Cummings (1996) demonstrated that the CPS score was strongly related to creative performance. Accordingly, the extent research predicts that having an inherent creative personality leads to taskrelated creativity for hospitality employees. After reviewing the prior literature, the following hypothesis would be tested. H1. Employees’ creative personalities significantly increase employee creativity. Extrinsic motivators are defined as persons who engage in activities to achieve a goal external to task engagement (Hennessey and Amabile, 1988). However, some of extrinsic goals or motivators, such as job wages and job advancement, generally produce less creative outcomes than those from intrinsic motivators (Amabile, 1985). Wong and Pang (2003) suggested that hospitality employee

J.-H. Chang, C.-C. Teng / International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 133–141

creativity could be enhanced by supervisors’ support and encouragement. Therefore, leadership behavior plays a key role as an extrinsic motivator for employee creativity. Transformational leadership (TFL) is usually associated with a leadership type which is significant and potentially substantial enhancement of creativity (Shin and Zhou, 2003; Wang et al., 2014). It is defined as “influencing followers by broadening and elevating followers’ goals and providing them with confidence to perform beyond the expectations specified in the implicit or explicit exchange agreement” (Dvir et al., 2002). In other words, TFL focuses on interactions between leaders and followers. A TFL supervisor can inspire employees to change their expectations and perceptions in order to motivate them working toward the common goals (Burns, 1978). Extending the work of Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) argued that the four features of TFL leaders (i.e. charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) influence their employees. Charisma refers to leaders who are role models for employees, generally causing employees to trust, admire, and identify with them. Inspirational motivation refers to a compelling vision of the future that appeals to and inspires employees. Intellectual stimulation refers to leaders encouraging employees to challenge assumptions, reframe problems, adopt novel approaches, and take risks. Finally, individualized consideration refers to the treatment of employees on a one-on-one basis. The importance of TFL in shaping employees’ attitudes and behaviors has been empirically verified (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). In the hospitality industry, a clear message or goal is typically delivered to hospitality employees: provide superior service to customers. To do attain this goal, a TFL supervisor may encourage subordinates to maintain enthusiasm when servicing customers, help them consider new and creative ways to improve service quality, increase their confidence in taking risks, and recognize their contribution to their company. Hence, service employee creativity should be enhanced when their supervisors practice TFL (Gong et al., 2009; Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009; Wang et al., 2014). After reviewing the prior literature, the following general hypothesis is proposed. H2. Transformational leadership significantly increases employee creativity 2.3. Organizational level regulatory focus Numerous studies demonstrated that contextual factors, such as organizational encouragement and impediments and relationship at work, are closely related to employee creativity (Amabile et al., 1996; Coelho et al., 2011; Jaiswal and Dhar, 2015; Tsai et al., 2015). Higgins (1997) argued that people are motivated by two kinds of self-regulatory focuses: promotion focus and prevention focus. Individuals with promotion focus are sensitive to gains, advancement, and accomplishment. They pursue goals and try to maximize the number of positive outcomes. Conversely, those with a prevention focus are sensitive to losses and concerned with safety and responsibility. They pursue goals with vigilance and try to minimize the number of negative outcomes (Higgins, 1997; Higgins et al., 2001; Higgins and Silberman, 1998). In recent years, the selfregulatory focus theory has been used to the application of the service industry. For instance, Wan et al. (2011) indicated that a prevention focus customer tends to perceive lower service quality when he/she witnesses a service failure that happen to a stranger who is similar to him/her. Yang et al. (2013) also pointed out that a promotion focus customer tends to have more negative emotions for a pre-process delay; however, a prevention customer tends to be more sensitive to an in-process delay. The current study intended to use regulatory focus theory at the organization-level to account for how the organizational contexts influence individual-level creativity in the hospitality industry. The

135

assumption is when an organization focuses on a specific goal, it will cause employees in the organization having a specific attitude toward their tasks or events, so that they will attach different weights to the importance of the outcomes (Aaker and Lee, 2001; Bettman and Sujan, 1987). Specifically, a promotion focus organization, as similar as an individual, pursues positive outcomes and develops a free-thinking atmosphere. Accordingly, employees in an organization with higher levels of promotion focus will perceive the organizational climate motivating them to create novel solutions and encouraging them to achieve specific goals. Therefore, the effects of employee creative personality and perceived supervisor TFL on creativity should be significant when the level of promotion focus in the hospitality firm is high. Conversely, an organization with higher levels of prevention focus will lead employees to develop a conservative attitude as the organization climate tends to concern with safety and responsibility (Higgins, 1997; Higgins et al., 2001). Thus, employees in the prevention-focus organization are likely to be sensitive to losses and require setting standard processes and rules for completing the tasks and minimizing negative outcomes. In this sense, organizational prevention focus is considered no influence or even harmful to the development of creativity. The level of promotion focus in a hospitality firm is thus assumed without moderating the effects of creative personality and TFL on employee creativity. Based on the discussion mentioned above, the following hypotheses were purposed: H3. The relationships between a) creative personality, b) TFL and employee creativity are reinforced by an organizational promotion focus. H4. The relationships between a) creative personality, b) TFL and employee creativity are not moderated by an organizational prevention focus. 2.4. Creative behavior and job performance Creativity is often a source of competition advantage (Amabile, 1996; Amabile et al., 2005; Oldham and Cummings, 1996) as well as an important factor in providing high-quality services in the hospitality industry (Claver-Cortes et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2014). However, few studies examined directly the relationship between hospitality employee creativity and job performance in the hospitality industry. Even though Gong et al. (2009) have mentioned that employee creativity is related to employee sales, direct evidence for the relationship between creativity and service job performance is still lacking. The current study asserts that if employees use new and useful ideas on providing service, or consider improvements to service processes and procedures, service quality and its effectiveness should be improved. In other words, employee creativity can increase job performance significantly. H5. Employee creativity is positively related to their job performance. 3. Methods 3.1. Data collection The proposed theoretical framework (see Fig. 1) was tested using pair-sampling data collected from managers and their subordinates employed in international tourist hotels in Taiwan. International tourist hotels were selected as research target for two reasons. First, the hotel industry is expanding in Taiwan and Taiwan government has the primary goal of promoting tourism. Following government policies, hotel firms always make efforts to improve service quality and to provide unique characteristics to increase customer satisfaction. Thus, employee creativity is key

136

J.-H. Chang, C.-C. Teng / International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 133–141

Fig. 1. Theoretical Framework.

to innovation and success in today’s competitive market. Second, international tourist hotels are equipped with various functional departments (e.g., front office, housekeeping, food and beverage, and back office). The data collected from different departments can reduce the bias that might accrue from a single department and thus can increase the external validity of the study. According to the Tourism Bureau of Taiwan Government, there were 71 international tourist hotels in Taiwan in 2014. Because all data need to be collected from international tourist hotels, we contacted department managers of the 71 hotels and asked if they are willingly to participate in our study. Questionnaires for both the supervisor and employee samples were sealed in envelopes and sent to the managers who committed to participate in this study. Respondent managers were instructed to complete the questionnaire about their background and to evaluate their subordinate employees regarding their creative behavior and job performance. Each respondent employee also received his/her questionnaire in a sealed envelope from the supervisor manager and returned the completed questionnaires in a sealed envelope to his/her supervisor. Respondent employees were instructed to evaluate their own creative personality, and to assess their direct supervisor regarding leadership behavior and organizational regulatory focus. The incentives of gift certificates (200 NTDs) were provided to thank to the participants of this study. Research data were collected from June to August in 2014. Of the 446 and 89 questionnaires sent to subordinate employees and supervisors respectively, 365 employee questionnaires (81.8%) and 73 supervisor questionnaires (82%) from 62 international tourist hotels were returned. After deleting the invalid questionnaires, 339 pairs of valid questionnaires (339 employee and 72 supervisor questionnaires) accounted for a 76% response rate. Each individual supervisor rated three to five employees. From the results of the respondent characteristics (see Table 1), of all participants, 236 were female (69.6%) and 103 were male (30.4%); average years of work experience was 5.25. Most respondents were younger than 30 years of age and had at least a bachelor’s degree (287, 84.7%). More than half of all supervisors were female (54.2%), and had an average of 14.29 years of experi-

ence. The majority of supervisors was from the age of 31 to 50, and had a bachelor’s (43, 59.7%) or master’s degrees (22, 30.6%). 3.2. Measures All scales in this study were originally in English. Two-way translations were done by two researchers who were bilingual in English and Chinese to ensure translation quality and meaning equivalency (Brislin, 1980). 3.2.1. Creative personality characteristics To evaluate employee creative personality, this study adopted Gough’s creative personality scale (CPS) (Gough, 1979). This scale is widely used to measure personal creativity. Participants placed a check mark beside an adjective that they believed applied to them. Of the 30 adjectives, 18 were for highly creative people, such as capable, clever, confident, and egotistical. The value assigned to each checked adjective was +1. In contrast, the remaining 12 adjectives applied to less creative people, such as cautious, commonplace, conservative, and conventional. The value assigned to each of these adjectives was −1. Creative personality is represented by sum of scores. 3.2.2. Perceived transformational leadership This study used the 7-item scale of global transformational leadership (GLT) developed by Carless et al. (2000) to assess the respondent’s perceptions of leadership behavior of his/her direct supervisor by a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 for “not at all” to 5 for “always.” The TFL construct in this study was a complete concept, rather than consisting of the four sub-constructs of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration. In addition, meta-analysis has demonstrated that these four sub-constructs (Avolio and Bass, 2002) are highly correlated (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). That is, separating these four sub-constructs is difficult (Liao and Chuang, 2007). A global measure can quite effectively represent TFL behavior. Sample GLT items are: “my supervisor communicates a clear and positive vision

J.-H. Chang, C.-C. Teng / International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 133–141

137

Table 1 The supervisors and employees background. Employees

Supervisors n

%

Gender

Male Female

103 236

30.4 69.6

33 39

45.8 54.2

age

<20 21–30 31–40 41–50 >51

15 197 97 22 8

4.4 58.1 28.6 6.5 2.4

0 15 23 23 11

0 20.8 31.9 31.9 15.3

Education

Senior or lower College Master or above

52 267 20

15.3 78.8 5.9

7 43 22

9.7 59.7 30.6

Department

Room & housekeeping Food & beverage Marketing Administration Human resources management Purchasing Security Others

106 92 60 14 25 6 4 32

31.3 27.1 17.7 4.1 7.4 1.8 1.2 9.4

18 15 18 4 5 2 1 9

25.0 20.8 25.0 5.6 6.9 2.8 1.4 12.5

of the future”; and “my supervisor treats staff as individuals, and supports and encourages their development.” 3.2.3. Organizational regulatory focus The scale of regulatory focus developed by Fellner et al. (2007) was applied to evaluate organizational regulatory focus. Specifically, respondent employees need to answer questions about their feeling or perception of organizational focuses by five items (Likert 5-point scale, ranging from 1 for “definitely disagree” to 5 for “definitely agree) for promotion focus and five items for prevention focus. Then, the individual scores in the same department would be aggregated as representing the organizational regulatory focus. A sample item for promotion focus is ‘My department prefers me to work without instructions from others,’ and a sample item for prevention focus is “For my department, it is very important to carry out the obligations placed on me.” 3.2.4. Employee creativity This study used Scott and Bruce’s scale of creative behavior (1994) to measure hospitality employee creativity. This scale was not filled out by employees; rather, the supervisors were responsible to evaluate their subordinate employees in terms of perceived creative behavior by responding to six items on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 for “not at all” to 6 for “to an exceptional degree.” Sample items are such as “searches out new technologies, processes, techniques, and/or product ideas,” and “generates creative ideas.” 3.2.5. Job performance Finally, employees’ job performance was assessed using the scale from Wayne et al. (1997). Similar to employee creativity, supervisors rated their subordinates’ job performance in relation to five items on a Likert 5-point scale, ranging from 1 for “definitely disagree” to 5 for “definitely agree.” The sample items are “All in all, this employee is very competent,” and “In my estimation, this employee gets his or her work done very effectively.” 3.3. Analytical processes The two-step strategy by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was applied to test theoretical model. In the first step, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to confirm the validity and reliability of measurement model. In the second step, because data are hierarchical, and service employees worked in different departments,

n

%

hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analyses was conducted to test our hypotheses. The HLM simultaneously accounted for the impact of factors at different levels on individual-level outcomes, while maintaining appropriate levels of analysis for predictors (Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992). The CFA was performed by AMOS 16.0 and HLM analysis was done by HLM 6.02. 4. Results 4.1. Measurement model The items in the measurement model that were non-significant to the construct, or highly correlated to two or more constructs simultaneously by CFA were removed. Of all remaining items, three were for promotion focus, three were for prevention focus, five were for TFL, six were for creative behaviors and five were for employees’ job performance. Factor loading of all individual items was significant (p < 0.001), demonstrating preliminary convergent validity (Table 2). Moreover, the composite reliability of each construct was 0.77–0.91, indicating good internal reliability for all constructs (Bagozzi and Yi, 1989; Hair et al., 2010). Table 2 shows variable means, standard deviations, average variance extracted (AVE), average shared variance (ASV) and correlations for variables. The AVE of all variables exceeded 0.50, providing additional evidence of convergent validity for the measurement model. Finally, almost all constructs’ square roots of AVE were greater than interconstruct correlations (only promotion focus was slightly smaller than the correlation between employee creativity and job performance). However, the AVE of each construct exceeded the ASV (Table 2), indicating that each construct had good discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010). To assess model fit of the measurement model, several fit indices were applied; the application results were as follows: ␹2 (200) = 483.10 (p < 0.001); ␹2 /df = 2.42; goodness of fit (GIF) = 0.89; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.93; adjusted goodness of fit (AGFI) = 0.87; and root mean of squared error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.065. These indices demonstrate that the measurement model had a good fit to data (Hu and Bentler, 1999). 4.2. HLM results Organization-level promotion focus and prevention focus were aggregated across multiple employees in the same development. Therefore, the viability of aggregations was first assessed for both

138

J.-H. Chang, C.-C. Teng / International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 133–141

Table 2 Factor loadings, standard errors, critical ratios of observations, and composite reliabilities of constructs. Construct

Item

Standardized factor loading

S.E.1

C.R.2

Composite reliability

Employee creativity (EC)

EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 EC6

0.79 0.83 0.60 0.77 0.84 0.91

– 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06

– 17.02 11.48 15.46 17.16 19.02

0.91

Promotion focus (ProF)

ProF1 ProF2 ProF3

0.79 0.70 0.71

– 0.08 0.07

– 11.55 11.84

0.77

Prevention focus (PreF)

PreF1 PreF2 PreF3

0.90 0.60 0.77

– 0.05 0.04

– 11.53 15.49

0.81

Transformational leadership (TFL)

TFL1 TFL2 TFL3 TFL4 TFL5

0.79 0.83 0.83 0.79 0.86

– 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07

– 16.88 16.78 15.86 17.62

0.91

Job performance (JP)

JP1 JP2 JP3 JP4 JP5

0.83 0.78 0.66 0.80 0.74

– 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06

– 16.10 12.87 16.52 14.88

0.87

Note: 1. S.E. means Standard error of loading. 2. C.R. means critical ratio of loading. 3. All C.R. were significant (p<0.001).

constructs. Interrater agreement was assessed by James, Demaree, and Wolf’s rWG(J) (1984); mean value was 0.89 for promotion focus, and 0.91 for prevention focus. Then, intraclass correlation (ICC1) and reliability of group mean (ICC2) values were assessed for both organization-level factors. The ICC1 and ICC2 values were 0.24, and 0.61 for promotion focus, 0.14 and 0.44 for prevention focus, and 0.32 and 0.69 for employee creativity. Although the ICC2 value of prevention focus was slightly lower than Bliese’s (2000) suggested value, the aggregation could still be processed when it is justified by theory and supported by a high rWG(J) (Chen and Bliese, 2002; Kozlowski and Hattrup, 1992). This study applied HLM, which is an appropriate way to test cross-level relations while individual data are nested within groups, to test hypotheses. Table 3 presents HLM results. First, the CPS of participants significantly affected creative behavior (␥ = 0.03, p < 0.005). Next, the TFL of supervisors influenced employees’ creative behavior (␥ = 0.13, p < 0.05); therefore, H1 and H2 were supported. Finally, H3 and H4 asserted that promotion focus, not prevention focus, moderate the relationship between CPS, TFL and creative behavior. However, the findings show that organizational promotion focus only moderated the relationship between TFL and creative behavior (␥=0.28, p < 0.05), and the effect of the interaction between organizational promotion focus and CPS on creative behavior was not significant (␥ = 0.03, p = 0.29). Therefore, H3 was partially supported. Similarly, the analytical results reveal that organizational prevention focus did not significantly affect the relationship between TFL and creative behavior (␥ = −0.06, p = 0.73); but the effect of the interaction between organizational prevention focus and CPS on creative behavior was significant (␥ = 0.06, p < 0.05), such that H4 was partially supported. 4.3. Additional analyses Baron and Kenny’s method (1986) was applied to examine the mediating effect of employee creativity. This study tested the relationship between CPS, TFL and employee creativity. The results of model 1 have indicated that CPS (␥ = 0.03, p < 0.01), and TFL (␥ = 0.13, p < 0.05) significantly increased the number of magnitude

of employee creativity (see Table 4). The effects of CPS and TFL on job performance were also assessed. The test results for model 2 show that both independent variables significantly affected job performance (␥ = 0.02, p < 0.05; ␥ = 0.11, p < 0.05). Finally, CPS, TFL and employee creativity were input into model (model 3) with job performance as the dependent variable. The results of model 3 show that employee creativity significantly affects job performance (␥ = 0.44, p < 0.001); however, the coefficient of TFL in model 3 (␥ = 0.06, p < 0.05) was smaller than that in model 1 (␥ = 0.13, p < 0.05) and CPS in model 3 was insignificant (␥ = 0.01, p = 0.20). Therefore, employee creativity partially mediates TFL and job performance, and completely mediates CPS and job performance. 5. Discussion This study focuses on employee creativity and job performance, especially in the context of hospitality industry. Both the individual-level antecedents and the organization-level moderators are included in the tested model. In individual-level, this study confirms that TFL is positively associated with employee creativity, which is consistent with the findings of prior research (Gong et al., 2009; Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009; Wang et al., 2014). Moreover, this study further identifies how employee creative personality improves their job performance through enhancing employee creativity, which provides additional evidence to the findings of previous creativity studies (e.g., Barron and Harrington, 1981; Gong et al., 2009; Oldham and Cummings, 1996). The results of the current study confirm that employee creativity is a positive mediator between creative personality and job performance within the hospitality workplace. Although numerous studies noted that organizational factors would affect employee creativity (Jaiswal and Dhar, 2015; Tsai et al., 2015), this study is the first research which considers the moderating effects of both organizational-level promotion and prevention focuses on employee creativity in the hospitality industry. Different from previous studies, the current study contributes to the literature by using two opposite organizational contexts (i.e. promotion and prevention focuses) to account for how self-regulatory focuses

J.-H. Chang, C.-C. Teng / International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 133–141

139

Table 3 Means, standard deviations, AVE, ASV, square roots of AVE, correlations of variables.

1. employee creativity 2. Promotion focus 3. Prevention focus 4. Transformational leadership 5. Job performance

Mean

S.D.

AVE

ASV

1

2

3

4

5

4.06 3.60 4.01 3.73 3.84

0.84 0.69 0.58 0.75 0.58

0.63 0.53 0.59 0.67 0.58

0.15 0.21 0.11 0.21 0.16

0.80 0.20 0.06 0.11 .74***

0.73 .44*** .73*** .23***

0.77 .48*** 0.14

0.82 0.19

0.76

Note: 1. ***p<0.001 (2 tailed). 2. The square roots of AVE for discriminant validity are in the diagonal.

Table 4 Results of HLM. Level and variables

Level 1 Intercept Gender Age Education Creative personality Transformational leadership Employee creativity Cross-level Promotion focus × creative personality Promotion focus × transformational leadership Prevention focus × creative personality Prevention focus × transformational leadership Model deviance R2

Employee creativity

Job performance

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

4.02*** −0.11 0.06 −0.05 0.03** 0.13*

3.83*** 0.01 0.06 −0.04 0.02* 0.11*

3.83*** 0.07 0.02 −0.03 0.01 0.06* 0.44***

562.35 0.21

390.60 0.12

0.03 0.29* 0.06* −0.10 799.79 0.42

Note: 1. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. 2. R2 is based on the proportional reduction of levels 1 and 2 error variance resulting from predictors.

influence the development of creativity. Additionally, even though the data was collected in Taiwan, the findings of this study are not limited by the boundaries of countries. Since this study did not include any cultural- or country- specific factors, the issues regarding the cultural differences should be minimized and the implications of this study should be able to extend and apply to other similar contexts of the work environment. According to the results, the moderating effects of organizational promotion focus on the relationships between creative personality, TFL and employee creativity was not totally significant. Further research analyses showed that organizational promotion focus only reinforces the relationship between TFL and employee creativity, without reinforcing the effect of creative personality on employee creativity. Instead, organizational prevention focus has been identified moderating the relationship between creative personality and employee creativity. The unexpected finding might be explained by the construal level theory (Liberman and Trope, 1998; Trope and Liberman, 2003). Since organizational promotion focus stresses the importance of motivating and encouraging employees to create new products and services, the innovative climate and supervisor support for creativity will lead employees to involve in the high-level construal. That is, employees will be motivated to invest more time and efforts in the process of generating new ideas which are abstract and decontextualized thoughts, whereas pay less attention to establish concrete and feasible plans for assigned goals (Liberman and Trope, 1998). In contrast, employees under the context of prevention focus are likely to avoid taking risks so that they tend to involve in the low-level construal. This implies that organizational prevention focus can motivate creative employees by focusing on safe planning and feasible strategies (e.g., improving service procedures) to prevent negative outcomes that eventually facilitate the development of creativity (Higgins, 1997; Higgins et al., 2001). The interesting results mentioned above can provide insights into the application of organizational focus strategies in

different work settings to enhance employee creativity and job performance. 6. Practical implications The current study attempted to integrate both individual- and organizational-level factors and examine their interaction effects on employee creativity and job performance in the hospitality industry. The analytical results demonstrate that both creative personality and TFL can improve employee creativity and job performance; however, these relationships are moderated by organizational regulatory focuses. This provides several implications on leadership and human resource management for hospitality managers. First, managers should develop organizational goal orientations that are appropriate to different departments or work units. Specifically, hospitality managers who focus only on recruiting creative employees and developing TFL without considering organizational contextual factors may not achieve high levels of creative performance. Since both organizational promotion and prevention focuses are found to be able to reinforce employee creativity, this implies that developing only one type of organizational goal is a risky decision. Rather, managers should consider developing an organizational goal based on the functions and the nature of the department or the units of a company. For instance, the organizational prevention focus strategy seems appropriate to the marketing department of a hotel since the nature of this department requires employees with higher levels of creative personality to complete tasks and achieve specific goals. Therefore, marketing managers should use organizational prevention focus as a motivator to improve employee creativity and job performance by setting clear monthly goals and expected outcomes. On the other hand, some departments require employees to follow strict standard procedures or approaches to ensure quality service (e.g., housekeeping) are recommended to adopt the pro-

140

J.-H. Chang, C.-C. Teng / International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 133–141

motion focus strategy to motivate employee creativity. In such an organizational context, TFL style managers can motivate employees to achieve the common goals by providing support and encouragement to enhance employee creativity and job performance. In addition to that, using the promotion focus strategy is beneficial to develop an innovative climate that can enhance employees’ intention to try new things and thus can improve employee creativity. Based on the findings of this study, it is suggested that managers should not only focus on personal motivators for the improvement of creativity, they should also consider the interaction effect of the organizational context as a key factor which co-influences employee creativity and job performance.

7. Limitations and future research This study focused on the independent effect of creative personality and TFL, but did not examine the interactive effect of two independent variables. This may limit the external validity in some circumstances, such as when a creative employee works for a TFL supervisor. However, considering the effect of an interaction between creative personality and TFL may cloud research goals. Future studies should investigate the relationship between creative personality and TFL in the hospitality industry. Second, the analytical result indicating that employees with a creative personality fit that organizational prevention focus and TFL fits the organizational promotion focus is beyond expectations. Although this study provides specific reasons for these findings, whether findings apply only to a special case in the hospitality context or are a universal phenomenon is unclear. Future research could examine the role of organizational regulatory focus in different industries or even in different countries to see whether research findings could be replicated. Third, even though employee creativity and job performance were assessed by their supervisors, rather than by themselves, the data obtained were still cross-sectional. In other words, supervisors have to evaluate their employees using their impressions and/or historical data. Therefore, a longitudinal approach may give supervisors sufficient time for long-term observations of their subordinates’ behaviors.

Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank the National Science Council of the Republic of China, Taiwan, for financially supporting this research under Contract No. NSC101-2511-S-030-004-MY3.

References Aaker, J.L., Lee, A.Y., 2001. I seek pleasures and we avoid pains: the role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. J. Consum. Res. 28 (1), 33–49. Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., Herron, M., 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 39 (5), 1154–1184. Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B., Kramer, S.J., 2004. Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: perceived leader support. Leadersh. Q. 15 (1), 5–32. Amabile, T.M., Barsade, S.G., Mueller, J.S., Staw, B.M., 2005. Affect and creativity at work. Adm. Sci. Q. 50 (3), 367–403. Amabile, T.M., 1983. The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45 (2), 357. Amabile, T.M., 1985. Motivation and creativity: effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48 (2), 393. Amabile, T.M., 1996. Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. Harvard Business School. Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103 (3), 411. Avolio, B., Bass, B., 2002. Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X). Mindgarden, Redwood City, CA. Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1989. On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs. J. Market. Res. 26 (3), 271–284.

Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51 (6), 1173. Barron, F., Harrington, D.M., 1981. Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 32 (1), 439–476. Bass, B.M., Steidlmeier, P., 1999. Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadersh. Q. 10 (2), 181–217. Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Goodheim, L., 1987. Biography and the assessment of transformational leadership at the world-class level. J. Manag. 13 (1), 7–19. Bass, B.M., 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press, Collier Macmillan. Bass, B.M., 1991. From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision. Organ. Dyn. 18 (3), 19–31. Bettman, J.R., Sujan, M., 1987. Effects of framing on evaluation of comparable and noncomparable alternatives by expert and novice consumers. J. Consum. Res., 141–154. Bliese, P.D., 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data aggregation and analysis. In: Klein, K.J., Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations. JosseyBass, San Francisco, pp. 349–381. Borovskaia, I., Dedova, M., 2014. Creativity in hospitality industry: study of hostels in St. Petersburg. Petersburg (December 17, 2013) coactivity: philosophy. Communication 22 (2), 137–144. Brislin, R.W., 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology, 2 (2) 349–444. Brockner, J., Higgins, E.T., 2001. Regulatory focus theory: implications for the study of emotions at work. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 86 (1), 35–66. Bryk, A., Raudenbush, S., 1992. Hierarchical Linear Models for Social and Behavioral Research. Applications and Data Analysis Methods Sage Publications, Inc., London, UK. Burns, J.M., 1978. Leadership. Harper & Row, NY. Carless, S.A., Wearing, A.J., Mann, L., 2000. A short measure of transformational leadership. J. Bus. Psychol. 14 (3), 389–405. Chen, G., Bliese, P.D., 2002. The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self-and collective efficacy: evidence for discontinuity. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 (3), 549. Claver-Cortes, E., Molina-Azorín, J.F., Pereira-Moliner, J., 2006. Strategic groups in the hospitality industry: intergroup and intragroup performance differences in Alicante, Spain. Tour. Manag. 27 (6), 1101–1116. Coelho, F., Augusto, M., 2010. Job characteristics and the creativity of frontline service employees. J. Serv. Res. 13 (4), 426–438. Coelho, F., Augusto, M., Lages, L.F., 2011. Contextual factors and the creativity of frontline employees: the mediating effects of role stress and intrinsic motivation. J. Retail. 87 (1), 31–45. Davis, G.A., 1989. Testing for creative potential. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 14 (3), 257–274. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J., Shamir, B., 2002. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: a field experiment. Acad. Manag. J. 45 (4), 735–744. Fellner, B., Holler, M., Kirchler, E., Schabmann, A., 2007. Regulatory Focus Scale (RFS): development of a scale to record dispositional regulatory focus. Swiss J. Psychol. 66 (2), 109. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18 (1), 39–50. George, J.M., Zhou, J., 2001. When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: an interactional approach. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 (3), 513. Gong, Y., Huang, J.-C., Farh, J.-L., 2009. Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: the mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Acad. Manag. J. 52 (4), 765–778. Gough, H.G., 1979. A creative personality scale for the adjective check list. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37 (8), 1398. Gumusluoglu, L., Ilsev, A., 2009. Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. J. Bus. Res. 62 (4), 461–473. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th. ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA. Hennessey, B.A., Amabile, T.M., 1988. 1 The conditions of creativity. The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives, 11. Higgins, E.T., Silberman, I., 1998. Development of regulatory focus: promotion and prevention as ways of living. In: Heckhausen, J., Dweck, C.S. (Eds.), Motivation and Self-regulation Across the Life Span. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 78–113. Higgins, E.T., Friedman, R.S., Harlow, R.E., Idson, L.C., Ayduk, O.N., Taylor, A., 2001. Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: promotion pride versus prevention pride. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31 (1), 3–23. Higgins, E.T., 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. Am. Psychol. 52 (12), 1280. Higgins, E.T., 1998. Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 30, 1–46. Hon, A.H., Lui, S.S., 2016. Employee creativity and innovation in organizations: review, integration, and future directions for hospitality research. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 28 (5), 862–885. Hon, A.H., 2013. Does job creativity requirement improve service performance?: A multilevel analysis of work stress and service environment. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 35, 161–170.

J.-H. Chang, C.-C. Teng / International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 133–141 Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 6 (1), 1–55. Jaiswal, N.K., Dhar, R.L., 2015. Transformational leadership innovation climate, creative self-efficacy and employee creativity: a multilevel study. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 51, 30–41. James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., Wolf, G., 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. J. Appl. Psychol. 69 (1), 85. Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F., 2004. Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 89 (5), 755. Kattara, H.S., El-Said, O.A., 2014. Innovation strategies: the implementation of creativity principles in Egyptian hotels. Tour. Hosp. Res., 1467358414522053. Kim, T.T., Lee, G., 2013. Hospitality employee knowledge-sharing behaviors in the relationship between goal orientations and service innovative behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 34 (0), 324–337. Kozlowski, S.W., Hattrup, K., 1992. A disagreement about within-group agreement: disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. J. Appl. Psychol. 77 (2), 161. Li, M., Hsu, C.H., 2016. Linking customer-employee exchange and employee innovative behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 56, 87–97. Liao, H., Chuang, A., 2007. Transforming service employees and climate: a multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 (4), 1006. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., 1998. The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: a test of temporal construal theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75 (1), 5–18. Lin, S.-Y., Wong, C.-K.S., 2014. The mediating roles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation between classroom learning environment and creativity among hospitality students in Taiwan. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 19 (8), 913–931. Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G., Sivasubramaniam, N., 1996. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadersh. Q. 7 (3), 385–425. Oldham, G.R., Cummings, A., 1996. Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Acad. Manag. J. 39 (3), 607–634. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., Fetter, R., 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 1 (2), 107–142.

141

Scott, S.G., Bruce, R.A., 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 37 (3), 580–607. Shalley, C.E., Gilson, L.L., 2004. What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadersh. Q. 15 (1), 33–53. Shin, S.J., Zhou, J., 2003. Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: evidence from Korea. Acad. Manag. J. 46 (6), 703–714. Slåtten, T., Mehmetoglu, M., 2011. Antecedents and effects of engaged frontline employees: a study from the hospitality industry. Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 21 (1), 88–107. Tracey, J.B., Hinkin, T.R., 1994. Transformational leaders in the hospitality industry. Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 35 (2), 18–24. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., 2003. Temporal construal. Psychol. Rev. 110 (3), 403–421. Tsai, C.-Y., Horng, J.-S., Liu, C.-H., Hu, D.-C., 2015. Work environment and atmosphere: the role of organizational support in the creativity performance of tourism and hospitality organizations. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 46, 26–35. Wan, L.C., Chan, E.K., Su, L., 2011. When will customers care about service failures that happened to strangers? The role of personal similarity and regulatory focus and its implication on service evaluation. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 30 (1), 213–220. Wang, C.-J., Tsai, H.-T., Tsai, M.-T., 2014. Linking transformational leadership and employee creativity in the hospitality industry: the influences of creative role identity creative self-efficacy, and job complexity. Tour. Manag. 40, 79–89. Wayne, S.J., Liden, R.C., Graf, I.K., Ferris, G.R., 1997. The role of upward influence tactics in human resource decisions. Pers. Psychol. 50 (4), 979–1006. Wong, S.C.-k., Ladkin, A., 2008. Exploring the relationship between employee creativity and job-related motivators in the Hong Kong hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 27 (3), 426–437. Wong, S., Pang, L., 2003. Motivators to creativity in the hotel industry—perspectives of managers and supervisors. Tour. Manag. 24 (5), 551–559. Yang, W., Mattila, A.S., Hou, Y., 2013. The effect of regulatory focus and delay type on consumers’ reactions to delay. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 32, 113–120. Zhou, J., 1998. Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: interactive effects on creative performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 83 (2), 261.