Introduction
Employee creativity management is thought to be critical to organizational effectiveness (Lampel & Germain, Reference Lampel and Germain2016; Lu, Bartol, Venkataramani, Zheng, & Liu, Reference Lu, Bartol, Venkataramani, Zheng and Liu2019), and R&D teams, in particular. Although research has accumulated over the last 40 years in several disciplines spanning multiple levels of analysis, the affective, cognitive, and motivational factors related to creativity are in need of research attention (Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, Reference Anderson, Potočnik and Zhou2014). Two factors that have been found to be a critical driver of creativity are intrinsic motivation (IM; Hon, Reference Hon2012) and positive mood, a general enthusiastic, active state that is not aimed at a certain event or object (Davis, Reference Davis2009; De Dreu, Nijstad, & Baas, Reference De Dreu, Nijstad and Baas2011; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, Reference Watson, Clark and Tellegen1988). However, some of the mood–creativity research has had mixed findings due to differences in methodology, operationalization, and a disregard for intervening variables. In particular, little research has examined the integrative impact of mood and IM on employee creativity, with the exception of experimental study by Isen and Reeve (Reference Isen and Reeve2005). It is important to determine exactly how mood affects creativity in order to be able to offer managers' suggestions for creating conditions where employee creativity is likely to flourish.
This study addresses this gap by using the tripartite theory of IM (Carbonneau, Vallerand, & Lafrenière, Reference Carbonneau, Vallerand and Lafrenière2012) to explain why IM mediates the relationship between positive mood and creativity, and R&D team knowledge sharing affects the power of this mechanism. The theory identifies three needs related to IM: IM to know (i.e., engaging in an activity to experience pleasure while learning and trying to understand something new), IM toward accomplishment (i.e., engaging in an activity for the pleasure experienced when attempting mastery), and IM toward experience stimulation (i.e., engaging in an activity for feelings of sensory pleasure; Carbonneau, Vallerand, and Lafrenière, Reference Carbonneau, Vallerand and Lafrenière2012). The last two IM needs are especially relevant to employee creativity as it involves completing a task (IM toward accomplishment) that may be viewed as a sensory activity (IM toward experience stimulation).
In particular, this paper proposes that positive mood affects employee creativity through IM toward experience stimulation because experiencing pleasure (e.g., enjoying positive life events) should facilitate employee creativity, as people in positive moods are likely to be motivated to engage in tasks such as creativity that offer sensory pleasure. It is also expected that positive mood will influence employee creativity through IM toward accomplishment as it should lead employees to obtain more satisfaction from creative tasks. In addition, this paper proposes that R&D knowledge sharing affects the power of the mediated relationship between positive mood, IM, and creativity. The mediated relationship should be stronger for employees that share knowledge because this should give them satisfaction from being able to pool knowledge and increase their competence (IM toward accomplishment).
This study proposes that IM is a critical intervening mechanism in the relationship between positive mood and creativity, and team knowledge sharing affects the power of this mechanism. Positive mood and team knowledge sharing should improve employee IM through satisfying work experience stimulation needs and work accomplishment needs, which, in turn, enhance creativity.
Theory and hypotheses
IM and employee creativity
IM refers to performing certain activities for inherent satisfaction (Brown, Reference Brown2007) without expectation of external rewards (Coon & Mitterer, Reference Coon and Mitterer2010). When employees are intrinsically involved in their work, they dedicate all efforts to challenges they confront, which causes them to exhibit creativity through self-regulation (Kanfer, Reference Kanfer, Dunnette and Hough1990). IM increases persistence and task engagement (Hon, Reference Hon2012; Kong, Xu, Zhou, & Yuan, Reference Kong, Xu, Zhou and Yuan2019), and facilitates confidence in one's ability to generate creativity (Grant & Berry, Reference Grant and Berry2011; Ryan & Deci, Reference Ryan and Deci2000; Tan, Lau, Kung, & Kailsan, Reference Tan, Lau, Kung and Kailsan2019). Thus, maintaining and enhancing IM is essential to facilitating employee creativity (Ryan & Deci, Reference Ryan and Deci2000).
Needs satisfaction and IM
Several theories are helpful in examining the antecedents of IM. First, the tripartite theory of IM (Carbonneau, Vallerand, & Lafrenière, Reference Carbonneau, Vallerand and Lafrenière2012) suggests that satisfying the needs of accomplishment and stimulation should enhance individuals' IM. Second, cognitive evaluation theory (Ryan & Deci, Reference Ryan and Deci2000) suggests that social and environmental factors (e.g., feedback and communications) facilitate IM. One study found that students' IM in physical education was influenced by their perceived competence, perceived autonomy, physical appearance, goal orientation, and social environmental factors such as lesson content, the teacher, classmates, and school athletic facilities (Hassandra, Goudas, & Chroni, Reference Hassandra, Goudas and Chroni2003). Research in a student sample identified students' perceived competence as an antecedent to IM (Cury, Biddle, Famose, Sarrazin, Durand, & Goudas, Reference Cury, Biddle, Famose, Sarrazin, Durand and Goudas1996). Research in the workplace found that employees' IM was influenced by their proactive personality (Chen, Farh, Campbell-Bush, Wu, & Wu, Reference Chen, Farh, Campbell-Bush, Wu and Wu2013).
The reason why social and environmental factors are able to influence IM may be further clarified by self-determination theory, which suggests that there are three basic needs that must be satisfied in order for employees to be intrinsically motivated. The first need, competence, is defined as the knowledge that a person has the skills needed to successfully perform a task in a certain context. The second need, autonomy, involves a person's ability to have control related to the task. The third need, relatedness, encompasses individuals' beliefs that they are connected to others (Deci & Ryan, Reference Deci and Ryan1985). Thus, it is likely that contextual variables influence IM through the satisfaction of perceived needs. In this study, this paper uses these approaches to suggest that positive mood and team knowledge sharing improve employee IM through satisfying work experience stimulation needs and work accomplishment needs (Carbonneau, Vallerand, & Lafrenière, Reference Carbonneau, Vallerand and Lafrenière2012), which, in turn, enhance creativity.
Positive mood, intrinsic motivation, and creativity
Both mood (De Dreu, Nijstad, & Baas, Reference De Dreu, Nijstad and Baas2011) and IM (Hon, Reference Hon2012) have been identified as antecedents of creativity. However, some mood–creativity research has had mixed results. A meta-analysis by Davis (Reference Davis2009) demonstrated that the results appear to depend on the type of study (laboratory experiment vs. field study), operationalization of affect (short-term emotion vs. long-term mood), and the lack of moderators and mediators affecting the mood–creativity relationship. Another meta-analysis by Baas, De Dreu, and Nijstad (Reference Baas, De Dreu and Nijstad2008) found that the positive mood–creativity relationship by itself has a fairly small effect size. This suggests that mediators are at play here. The current paper proposes that IM mediates this relationship. The authors argued that the reason why positive moods are associated with greater levels of creativity was because of IM (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, Reference Baas, De Dreu and Nijstad2008).
However, little research has examined mood and IM in the same creativity model, with the exception of experimental study by Isen and Reeve (Reference Isen and Reeve2005). This paper hypothesizes that the relationship between positive mood and creativity is indirect, operating through IM. This paper proposes that IM is a mediator, rather than a moderator, in the relationship because it is thought to explain how positive mood is able to affect creativity. IM is a critical intervening mechanism in the relationship between positive mood and creativity because when employees with positive moods are intrinsically motivated to complete their work, they become committed to directing all their efforts to any novel challenges they confront, such as those required in creative work (Kanfer, Reference Kanfer, Dunnette and Hough1990). In addition, Hon (Reference Hon2012) has suggested that employee creativity is not possible without IM. It appears that certain cognitive skills used by intrinsically motivated people are required in order for employees to generate creative ideas (Hon, Reference Hon2012). Thus, it seems likely that IM acts as an intervening variable in the relationship between positive mood and creativity.
Drawing from the tripartite theory of IM (Carbonneau, Vallerand, & Lafrenière, Reference Carbonneau, Vallerand and Lafrenière2012), positive mood due to experiencing pleasure (e.g., enjoying positive life experiences) should induce people's IM toward work experience stimulation. This study also expects IM toward accomplishment to be affected by positive mood. Specifically, this paper proposes that positive mood will increase self-determination and lead individuals to derive more satisfaction and direct more effort toward their creative tasks. Previous laboratory research on students found that positive affect, when generated by a non-job-related manipulation, increases the inherent satisfaction people obtain from their work because subjects with positive affect are better able to consider the requirements of the scenario, use their resources, and select the appropriate actions for a situation where work needs to be accomplished (e.g., Isen & Reeve, Reference Isen and Reeve2005). Thus, positive affect is thought to increase the inherent satisfaction people get from their work (Erez & Isen, Reference Erez and Isen2002). Without this IM, employee creativity is not possible (Hon, Reference Hon2012).
This study builds on existing emotion/motivation research (e.g., Isen & Reeve, Reference Isen and Reeve2005). First, previous research measured affect rather than mood. Although the terms are often used interchangeably, affect refers to an immediate expression of an emotion directed toward a specific object or event whereas mood refers to a generalized emotion experienced for a long time (Davis, Reference Davis2009). Thus, mood should be a more robust predictor of a broader range of employee attitudes and behaviors than affect. Second, the researchers induced affect artificially in the laboratory by giving candy to students in a positive affect experimental group. This paper extends this research by examining mood in a more natural way by asking employees about their moods at work. Third, although Isen and Reeve (Reference Isen and Reeve2005) measured the ability to stay on an uninteresting task as the outcome, this paper focuses on creativity as the outcome.
Research in the proactivity literature also lends support for the relationship between positive mood and IM. Proactivity has been defined as a ‘special type of goal-directed behavior that is self-starting, change-oriented, and participatory’ (Bindl & Parker, Reference Bindl, Parker and Albrecht2010: 388). Positive mood should affect proactivity because it triggers an approach action tendency and broadens employees' ‘momentary action thought repertoire’ (Bindl & Parker, Reference Bindl, Parker and Albrecht2010: 388), which is essential to proactivity. In turn, proactivity boosts their expectations of success (Seo, Bartunek, & Feldman Barrett, Reference Seo, Bartunek and Feldman Barrett2010). Den Hartog and Belschak (Reference Den Hartog and Belschak2007) found that health care employees in a positive mood had higher levels of personal initiative in the workplace. Fritz and Sonnentag (Reference Fritz and Sonnentag2009) demonstrated that positive mood encourages taking charge behaviors both on the same day and next day. Bindl, Parker, Totterdell, and Hagger-Johnson (Reference Bindl, Parker, Totterdell and Hagger-Johnson2012) found that positive mood was positively related to four parts of proactive goal regulation: envisioning, planning, enacting, and reflecting. Hence positive mood should increase IM toward work experience stimulation and accomplishment (i.e., engaging in an activity for the pleasure experienced when attempting mastery).
Employees' IM should, in turn, boost employee levels of creativity because when employees are intrinsically motivated to complete stimulating work such as creativity, they devote their energy to innovation as a way of engaging their curiosity and focusing on new ideas (Kanfer, Reference Kanfer, Dunnette and Hough1990). According to self-determination theory, by facilitating confidence, IM leads employees to pursue novel tasks such as generating creativity (Grant & Berry, Reference Grant and Berry2011; Ryan & Deci, Reference Ryan and Deci2000). Furthermore, when employees experience positive moods, their IM has even more energy to draw from to direct toward creative tasks.
Hypothesis 1 Employees' intrinsic motivation will mediate the relationship between positive mood and creativity.
The role of team knowledge sharing in the relationship between mood, intrinsic motivation, and creativity in the R&D context
Next, this paper identifies a variable that we propose will affect the power of IM in transmitting the mood effects on creativity: team knowledge sharing, the degree to which team members share information, ideas, knowledge, and experiences (Kessel, Kratzer, & Schultz, Reference Kessel, Kratzer and Schultz2012). R&D work is knowledge-intensive and aims to solve technical problems in a creative way. It involves the process of combining the aspects of existing knowledge into novel ideas (Nijstad & Stroebe, Reference Nijstad and Stroebe2006). Thus, accessing information from team members is a necessary part of creativity (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, Reference Amabile, Barsade, Mueller and Staw2005; Hon, Bloom, & Crant, Reference Hon, Bloom and Crant2014; Men, Fong, Luo, Zhong, & Huo, Reference Men, Fong, Luo, Zhong and Huo2019; Tang & Ye, Reference Tang and Ye2015).
Similarly, a meta-analysis in the innovation field identified communication as a key driver of employee innovation because the sharing of knowledge leads to new ideas (Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, Reference Hülsheger, Anderson and Salgado2009). This paper proposes that team knowledge sharing is a moderator, rather than a mediator, in the relationship because it is thought to explain the strength of the positive relationship between positive mood and IM. Although IM alone would be expected to lead employees to generate creative ideas, knowledge sharing should increase the perception of competence toward creative work as employees with access to more knowledge should be better able to integrate different knowledge bases and generate new knowledge.
The tripartite theory of IM (Carbonneau, Vallerand, & Lafrenière, Reference Carbonneau, Vallerand and Lafrenière2012) may be used to explain the relationship between knowledge sharing and IM. IM toward accomplishment refers to engaging in an activity for the satisfaction that comes from trying to accomplish or create something. When group members share knowledge while completing a task, it follows that they derive satisfaction from being able to pool their knowledge, and, thus, increase their competence. As such, team knowledge sharing is thought to boost group members' confidence in their own capabilities (Amabile et al., Reference Amabile, Barsade, Mueller and Staw2005). Thus, knowledge sharing helps members of R&D teams accomplish their work, which should satisfy the need for competence required for IM proposed by self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, Reference Ryan and Deci2000).
This paper proposes that knowledge sharing directs employees' attention toward pooling knowledge with other group members, boosting the effect of IM's mediating effect on creativity. This fits with motivated information processing theory, which suggests that people who are intrinsically motivated and engage in contributing to the group should be more likely to generate creative ideas (Grant & Berry, Reference Grant and Berry2011). In an empirical test of this theory, Grant and Berry (Reference Grant and Berry2011) found that perspective taking, the extent to which employees perceive that they take others' perspectives at work, increased the impact of IM on creativity by helping employees to attend to useful and novel ideas. Although the authors did not explicitly measure knowledge sharing, they noted that perspective taking also gives employees access to viewpoints that offer new information. Other researchers have proposed that people who are in a good mood are more likely to be willing to share their knowledge (Krok, Reference Krok2013).
Taken together, co-workers in a positive mood should be more likely to share knowledge in their creative efforts. According to broaden-and-build theory, team members in positive moods have improved communication (Rhee, Reference Rhee2007). Positive moods facilitate interactions that allow co-workers to develop social bonds (Keltner & Haidt, Reference Keltner and Haidt1999) and result in more cooperative behaviors (Barsade, Reference Barsade2002). Positive team emotions should create an environment that positively influences knowledge sharing (George & Brief, Reference George and Brief1992). As a result, it is expected that team knowledge sharing will moderate the relationship between positive mood and IM. The positive relationship between positive mood and IM should be stronger for those employees whose teams engage in a high degree of knowledge sharing. Thus, this paper proposes that a team's knowledge sharing behaviors generate a context that, when combined with positive moods, should facilitate higher levels of IM and creativity.
Hypothesis 2 When team knowledge sharing is high, the positive effect of intrinsic motivation on the mood–creativity relationship will be higher.
Method
Participants and procedure
Two hundred surveys were provided to team leaders from three national research institutes in the energy, geochemistry, and chemistry fields in China. Team leaders distributed the surveys to team members. Thirty teams completed and returned the packets (60% response rate) – with 120 scientists responding. A total of 74.2% were male; 30% were aged 20–25, 62.5% were 26–35, and 7.5% were 36–45. A total of 8% had a bachelor's degree, 51% had a master's degree, and 41% had a PhD. A total of 28% had fewer than 2 years of work experience, 62% had between 2 and 5 years, 3% had 5–8 years, and 8% had more than 8 years. A total of 47% were a part of a team with fewer than five members, 43% had 5–10 members, and 10% had 10–20 members. Team members completed the measures assessing knowledge sharing, IM, and mood. Thirty leaders evaluated member creativity.
Measures
The measures were adapted from English instruments, using a back translation procedure (Brislin, Reference Brislin, Lonner and Berry1986) to convert to Mandarin Chinese.
Intrinsic motivation
Ten items (α = .94; Van Yperen & Hagedoorn, Reference Van Yperen and Hagedoorn2003) beginning with ‘Why do you do this job?’ assessed IM (e.g., ‘For the excitement I feel when I am really involved in my job’). The 5-point Likert-type scale ranged from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.’
Knowledge sharing
Five items (α = .95) adapted from Chiu, Hsu, and Wang's (Reference Chiu, Hsu and Wang2006) scale assessed knowledge sharing (e.g., ‘I share work-relevant knowledge with my team members’). The 5-point Likert-type scale ranged from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.’
Positive mood
The positive mood scale (α = .91; Watson, Clark, and Tellegen, Reference Watson, Clark and Tellegen1988) consisted of 10 emotion-related terms. Items assessed how the emotion term described a participant's feeling in the past half-year on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘very slightly or not at all’ to ‘extremely’ (e.g., ‘enthusiastic’). The item ‘alert’ was removed due to not loading onto one factor with the other items.
Creativity
Zhou and George's (Reference Zhou and George2001) 8-item (α = .81) scale of leader-reported creativity of team members was used (e.g., ‘This team member [name] suggests new ways to achieve goals or objectives’). The 5-point Likert-type scale ranged from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.’
Control variables
In addition, data on age, gender (male = 0, female = 1), team size, education, and work experience were collected to serve as control variables, as they have been shown to affect creativity (Mueller & Kamdar, Reference Mueller and Kamdar2011).
Results
Before conducting the analysis for the two mediation effect models, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and a concept model fit analysis were conducted. The four-factor model included positive mood, IM, knowledge sharing, and creativity. The four-factor model fit the data well (χ2 = 705.79, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .07). This paper also tested three alternative models: a three-factor model 1 (combining knowledge sharing and IM as one factor), a three-factor model 2 (combining positive mood and IM into one factor), and a one-factor model including all study items. The results showed that the four-factor fit the data better than each of the alternative models and there were significant differences between them (Δχ2 = 678.56**, Δχ2 = 717.07**, Δχ2 = 1,200.84**, respectively), supporting the construct distinctiveness of these variables (see Table 1). To test the concept model's validity, structural equations modeling was used. The fit indices of the fully mediated model were superior to those in the partially mediated model (χ2/df = 1.69; RMSEA = .08; CFI = .90).
Table 1. Results of confirmatory factor analysis of the measurement models
Note. Four factor model: positive mood, IM, knowledge sharing, and creativity. Three factor model 1: combining IM and knowledge sharing. Three factor model 2: combining positive mood and IM. One factor model: all items set to load on one factor.
*p < .05, **p < .01.
Next, the possibility of common method bias was assessed. First, Harman's one-factor test was performed by including all items in a principal components factor analysis (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff2012). As each factor explained equal variance, and no one factor accounted for most of the covariance, the data did not indicate evidence of common method bias. Second, the fit indices of a CFA model with a single unmeasured common latent factor were compared with those of a model without the common latent factor (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff2012). If the fit indices of the common latent factor model were significantly better than those of the original model, then a common method bias would be detected. In this study, the fit indices of the model with the common latent factor were not significantly better than those of the original model (see Table 2), providing further evidence that a common method bias did not influence this study's results. Also, the correlation matrix of individual-level variables did not indicate any highly correlated factors. These results, and the fact that the dependent variable was provided by team leaders, suggest that common method bias was not a major concern in this study. Descriptive statistics and correlations are given in Table 3.
Table 2. Common method bias test
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and correlations
*p < .05, **p < .01, two-tailed test.
Before analyzing team knowledge sharing, inter-rater agreement and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were found to be at acceptable levels; thus, it was possible to proceed with the team-level analyses (rwg = .87, ICC(1) = .33, ICC(2) = .98).
The data in this study were multilevel in nature, so we used hierarchical linear modeling to test the hypotheses, which permits the examination of individual- and team-level variables in the same model. To test hypothesis 1, we examined models which only involved individual-level variables (see Table 4). Model 1 showed that employee positive mood was positively associated with creativity (β = .185, p < .001). Model 2 showed that, after entering IM, positive mood had no significant effect on creativity (β = .066, p > .05), and IM was positively associated with creativity (β = .299, p < .001). Next, regression analyses with IM as the dependent variable were conducted. Model 3 showed that employee positive mood was positively associated with IM (β = .372, p < .001). Thus, hypothesis 1 was supported.
Table 4. Hierarchical linear modeling analysis
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
To test hypothesis 2, we controlled for the level-2 team variables (knowledge sharing and interaction term). The effects of positive mood, knowledge sharing, and their interaction term on intrinsic mood were significant (β = .297, p < .001; β = .514, p < .01; β = .282, p < .05) (see Table 4, model 4). Next, to examine the cross-level moderating effect, a multi-level moderated mediation analysis was conducted. The sample was divided into two groups according to whether the moderating variable was high (one standard deviation above the mean) or low (one standard deviation below the mean) (see Table 5). When team knowledge sharing was high, after entering the control variables, employee positive mood was positively associated with IM (β = .19, p = .01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .11 to .48), and IM was positively associated with creativity (β = .29, p = .01, 95% CI = .11 to .48). Employees' positive mood had no effect on their creativity (β = −.01, p = .91, 95% CI = −.15 to .13). When team knowledge sharing was low, the relationship between employee positive mood and IM was not significant (β = .05, p = .39, 95% CI = −1.00 to .27).
Table 5. Multi-level moderated mediation analysis
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Discussion
This study demonstrates that IM is a critical intervening mechanism in the relationship between positive mood and creativity, and team knowledge sharing affects the power of this mechanism. These findings have implications for theory and practice. First, previous research has documented the mood–creativity relationship from a cognitive perspective. Studies have found that positive affect leads to greater cognitive flexibility and facilitates creative problem solving (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, Reference Shalley, Zhou and Oldham2004). Positive mood has been found to be beneficial for creativity (Amabile et al., Reference Amabile, Barsade, Mueller and Staw2005). Most studies have found that positive mood increases creativity through cognitive means, such as leading people to feel less constrained, think flexibly and act in a more generative way (George & Zhou, Reference George and Zhou2007). However, a meta-analysis (Davis, Reference Davis2009) indicated that some mood–creativity research has had mixed results due to the type of study (laboratory experiment vs. field study), operationalization of affect (short-term emotion vs. long-term mood), and the presence of moderators and mediators affecting the mood–creativity relationship. This paper responds to this call by identifying a moderator (team knowledge sharing) and mediator (IM) of this relationship in an organizational context.
Another gap in the existing literature is that until recently there has been little attention paid to the influence of positive affect on motivation (with the exception of experimental study by Isen & Reeve, Reference Isen and Reeve2005). Although IM is frequently mentioned in creativity research, it is not often directly assessed in empirical tests (Dewett, Reference Dewett2007), or it is addressed mainly in the laboratory with student samples (Grant & Berry, Reference Grant and Berry2011). Furthermore, research has shown ambiguous findings about whether IM boosts creativity (Grant & Berry, Reference Grant and Berry2011). This study helps to clarify the mechanism through which mood affects employee creativity by demonstrating that positive mood influences creativity through IM. This paper found that employees who are experiencing a positive mood should exhibit higher levels of creativity if they are intrinsically motivated.
This paper builds on the existing research by measuring moods in a more natural way by asking employees rather than inducing a mood in a laboratory setting. Davis (Reference Davis2009) suggested that creativity in the workplace is different from that of the laboratory because it involves considerable effort directed at generating real-world ideas. His meta-analysis showed that research in the laboratory was more likely to detect a positive mood–creativity relationship than research in the field. Thus, the findings of the current study offer stronger support for the mood–creativity relationship in the field where multiple creativity performance measures are expected, rather than single ideation tasks generally observed in lab studies. Another way that this paper extends existing creativity research is by measuring creativity with a leader-report rather than a self-report measure. A meta-analysis in the innovation area suggested that such measures are more valid than self-report assessments (Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, Reference Hülsheger, Anderson and Salgado2009).
This paper also builds on cognitive evaluation theory (Ryan & Deci, Reference Ryan and Deci2000), self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, Reference Deci and Ryan2004), the tripartite theory of IM (Carbonneau, Vallerand, & Lafrenière, Reference Carbonneau, Vallerand and Lafrenière2012), and the proactivity literature (Bindl & Parker, Reference Bindl, Parker and Albrecht2010) to suggest that positive mood enhances employee IM through satisfying work experience stimulation needs and work accomplishment needs (Carbonneau, Vallerand, & Lafrenière, Reference Carbonneau, Vallerand and Lafrenière2012), which, in turn, enhance creativity. The study's findings may also be explained by motivated information processing theory (Kunda, Reference Kunda1990), which suggests that motivations facilitate information processing as people selectively process knowledge that is in keeping with their motivations. As a result, when positive moods heighten their IM, employees' desires to experience work stimulation and accomplishment should trigger them to concentrate on generating new ideas. But, in order to generate the most creative ideas, they must share knowledge.
This study contributes to the existing literature on knowledge sharing. By including it as a moderator in the model, this paper responds to Grant's (Reference Grant2008) call to empirically examine the processes that affect the relationship between IM and creativity. In addition, research in the computer science field has called for research on knowledge sharing that goes beyond laboratory experiments with student samples (Hung, Durcikova, Lai, & Lin, Reference Hung, Durcikova, Lai and Lin2011). Previous research suggested that knowledge sharing is important for creativity (Huang, Hsieh, & He, Reference Huang, Hsieh and He2014). This paper builds on this by showing that a team's knowledge sharing behaviors generate a context that, when combined with positive moods, should facilitate higher levels of IM and creativity. Previous studies have emphasized cognitive antecedents of IM. This paper extends the existing theories of IM to suggest that team knowledge sharing interacts with positive mood to increase employee IM through satisfying competence and work accomplishment needs (Carbonneau, Vallerand, & Lafrenière, Reference Carbonneau, Vallerand and Lafrenière2012), which, in turn, enhance creativity.
This study has implications for practice. Given the key role of IM in affecting creativity, supervisors should ensure that their management techniques enhance their employees' IM. For instance, they could include autonomy and challenge in their employees' jobs, and offer opportunities for the sharing of ideas to occur. Third, to the extent that managers can create conditions that enhance the likelihood of employees experiencing positive moods (e.g., encouraging social opportunities, conducting morale surveys, and emphasizing the positive things about the workplace), they can increase the potential for effective creative idea generation.
Limitations
Some caveats should be taken into account in the interpretation of this study's results. First, the cross-sectional design used to test the hypotheses was nonexperimental and, therefore, impeded causal conclusions. Baas, De Dreu, and Nijstad's (Reference Baas, De Dreu and Nijstad2008) meta-analysis found that the effect of positive moods on creativity weakened the longer time spent on a task. The finding of a mood–creativity relationship is in keeping with the notion that positive moods facilitate quick global processing and cognitive flexibility (De Dreu, Nijstad, & Baas, Reference De Dreu, Nijstad and Baas2011). However, Baas, De Dreu, and Nijstad (Reference Baas, De Dreu and Nijstad2008) found that through continued determination and persistence, subjects in a neutral mood are eventually able to catch up to those creativity levels exhibited by individuals in a positive mood. Future research should incorporate longitudinal designs.
Second, although this paper discussed different kinds of IM (e.g., IM to accomplish, and IM to experience stimulation; Carbonneau, Vallerand, & Lafrenière, Reference Carbonneau, Vallerand and Lafrenière2012), the measure of IM did not distinguish between the types. Future research should empirically examine each component of IM to further clarify the antecedents. Third, as noted earlier, the current study involved team members and their leaders in three national research institutes in the energy, geochemistry, and chemistry fields in China. Thus, the study's findings may not be easily generalizable to other cultures, and future research should examine the study's hypotheses in other countries.
Financial support
The research in this paper is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China project numbers 71673264, 71974178, 71932009, and the Ministry of Science and Technology project number 2018IM030100.
Xiaoyang Lu is a student in the School of Economics and Management at the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Stefanie E. Naumann is a professor of management in the Eberhardt School of Business at the University of the Pacific. She received her PhD in business administration from Louisiana State University. Her current research interests include work groups, helping behavior, and organizational justice. Her research has appeared in journals such as the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Journal of Organizational Behavior.
Chaoying Tang is a professor in the School of Economics and Management at the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences. She received her PhD from the Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences. She is now leading two projects on knowledge networks and R&D team creativity funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Currently, her research interests focus on R&D employee creativity. Her research has been published in journals such as International Journal of Technology Management, Creativity and Innovation Management, and the Journal of Management and Organization.
