La créativité, l'innovation et l'initiative sont des processus psychologiques qui facilitent la transformation des rôles professionnels individuels, des équipes et des organisations en ce qui est souhaitable. Cet article est donc axé sur des orientations de recherche virtuelles de ce secteur de plus en plus important. Plus précisément, nous indiquons trois graves lacunes, à savoir la nécessité d'une plus grande différenciation des processus, d'une intégration des concepts et d'une analyse transculturelle. Tout d'abord, les différents antécédents potentiels de la créativité spécifique ou des phases de l'innovation ont bénéficié d'une attention insuffisante. Ensuite, la recherche sur la créativité et l'innovation peut être enrichie par une intégration des concepts de proactivité récemment développés telles que l'initiative personelle et la parole. Enfin, les différences transculturelles dans les valeurs, les orientations motivationnelles et les préférences relatives au leadership peuvent rendre compte de la façon dont la créativité et l'innovation sont mises en oeuvre et cultivées à travers le monde. Eu égard à chacun de ces futurs défis, nous faisons des suggestions pour des avancées théoriques et empiriques et discutons des développements virtuels pratiques et méthodologiques.Creativity, innovation, and initiative are psychological processes that facilitate the transformation of individual work roles, teams, and organisations into desired future states. Therefore, the present paper focuses on potential research trends in this increasingly important area. Specifically, we identify three substantive gaps reflecting the needs for greater process differentiation, concept integration, and cross-cultural analysis. First, potential differential antecedents of specific creativity or innovation phases have received insufficient attention. Second, the creativity and innovation research domain may benefit from an integration of recently developed proactivity concepts such as personal initiative and voice behavior. Third, cross-cultural differences in values, motivational orientations, and leadership preferences may determine how creativity and innovation are enacted and cultivated across the globe. With respect to each of these future challenges, we provide suggestions for theoretical and empirical advancements and discuss potential practical and methodological developments.
Beliefs and practices regarding common method variance (CMV) were surveyed from a sample of top journal board members. Results indicated that reviewers frequently mentioned CMV concerns and believed that addressing this issue in the design stage was more effective than postdata approaches. Although there was little consensus regarding whether concerns about CMV would cause them to recommend rejection of manuscripts, reviewers generally agreed that some variables were more likely than others to be affected by CMV and that a simple focus on the method of measurement was not adequate for determining whether CMV caused problems with the interpretation of study results. Slight differences were observed across journals and were related to participant experience.
A work-specific measure of openness to experience was compared with the general NEO PI-R Openness scale for predicting supervisory ratings of creative performance at work. Results at the scale and facet levels indicated that the use of a consistent and criterionmatched frame of reference improved validity of this personality construct for the prediction of work-related creative problem solving. Scores from the Work-specific Openness scale significantly predicted creative work performance, whereas scores from the general measure did not. Results also showed incremental validity of the Work-specific scale over the NEO PI-R scale. Evidence is mounting that specifying a work context for personality measures can increase validity for predicting job performance beyond that typically observed when using general scales.
This work outlines the development and validation of a new self-report measure that assesses explicit aggressive beliefs and attitudes within the normal adult population (using 7 samples, total N = 3,533). These explicit aggressive beliefs and attitudes are expected to reflect aggressive biases including hostile attribution, potency, retribution, victimization by powerful others, derogation of target, and social discounting. The resulting scale is reliable with a hierarchical 6-factor structure, and displays convergent and discriminant validity. Criterion-related validity studies indicate incremental effects over socially desirable response bias, related implicit and explicit aggression measures, and is predictive of self-reported and other-reported aggression-related behaviors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.