The Influence of Individual Factors, Supervision and Work Environment on Creative Self‐Efficacy

Abstract

In highly competitive global markets, organizations have to distinguish themselves with creative and innovative solutions to satisfy discerning customers. Creativity, an important precursor for innovation, provides organizations with a competitive advantage in a reinforcing loop of improved customer service, increased staff morale, increased retention of quality staff and further improvements in service (Glisson & Durick, 1988; Anderson & College, 1992). Creative output comes from the performance of individuals with particular cognitive and personality traits (Masten & Caldwell-Colbert, 1987; Kirton, 1989) who are supported within a facilitative work environment (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Amabile et al., 1996; Rice, 2006). Confidence in one's own ability or one's self-efficacy is an important cognitive and social trait determining and sustaining work performance. Appropriate behaviours and performance standards are defined within the work environment and the ability and support received in meeting performance expectations enhance the individual's self-efficacy (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Bandura, 1997).Both creativity and self-efficacy have been associated with particular individual traits and environmental conditions in the workplace. While much has been written on these two concepts separately, less has been done to explore them as a single construct. This paper addresses the gap in the literature by linking creativity at work and occupational self-efficacy. It reviews the literature on antecedent concepts and current research into creative self-efficacy. In doing this, it provides the basis for further empirical exploration of possible linkages between creative self-efficacy and individual and work environment variables. The contribution this paper makes is in the identification of specific variables that are significantly related to creative self-efficacy. A model is proposed showing significant linkages between the identified variables.

Team Processing and Creative Self-efficacy in Professionals from Creative and Non-creative Industries

“…The process is similar to the Pygmalion process evident in Tierney and Farmer's (2004) study as well as in Chong and Ma's (2010) study. Self-expectations that creative professionals ought to have more confidence in creative endeavors than professionals in non-creative industries are realized.…”

“…In a study of 350 individuals from companies in non-creative industries including the financial, business service, telecommunication and food industries in Wellington, New Zealand, creative self-efficacy of managers was significantly higher than non-managers (Chong and Ma 2010). However, their results did not support a direct relationship between creative self-efficacy and either a trusting and caring atmosphere or organization structure.…”

“…Creative self-efficacy also serves as a significant variable in predicting success in creative professionals (Beeftink et al 2012), professionals in non-creative industries (Chong and Ma 2010;Tierney and Farmer 2002), and undergraduate college students (Hung et al 2008). Beeftink et al (2012) examined 276 successful architects in the Netherland and reported that self-efficacy played a key role in mediating the relation between innovative cognitive style and success in the creative profession regardless the size of the architectural business organizations.…”

Laboratory Environmental Conditions Influence Patent Inventors’ Creative Self-efficacy

“…Chen et al (2001) stated that self-efficacy denotes people's beliefs in their abilities within an organisation. Chong and Ma (2010) asserted that confidence in staff self-efficacy is a vital cognitive and social trait that determines and maintains positive work performance. Subsequently, Tierney and Farmer (2011) developed a specific concept of self-efficacy to judge following capacities within the context of CSE.…”

The Role of the Environment in the Individual Difference and Creativity Relationship

“…Polychronicity has been found to provide incremental validity beyond the big five in predicting performance (Conte & Gintoft, 2005). Polychronicity has been linked to creative behavior because of the increased use of problem solving processes by polychronic individuals when they switch from task to task (Chong & Ma, 2010), which requires them to tap into their creativity more.…”