creativity differences among managers

Journal of Vocational Behavior 29, 240-253 (1986)

Creativity Differences among Managers

LEONARD H. CHUSMIR

College of Business & Administration, University of Colorado at Denver

AND

CHRISTINE S. KOBERG

College of Business & Administration, University of Colorado at Boulder

Gender differences in creativity of managers were examined along with a large group of other work-related variables. Results indicate that male and female managers do not differ significantly in level of creative thinking, but do vary widely in creativity-job relationships. For male managers, need achievement is a significant predictor of creativity while for women it is need affiliation that predicts creativity. In addition, for women managers, age, education level, and hierarchical level are all positive predictors, but organizational tenure and propensity for risk taking were negative predictors of creativity scores. 0 1986 Academic press.

Inc.

Successful management is the result of a large number of variables. No single characteristic or quality is totally or even mostly responsible, but it is generally agreed that among the most important determinants are creative and innovative behaviors (Abbey & Dickson, 1983; Deveau, 1976; Feather, 1984; Gillis, 1983; Grossman, 1982; Kanter, 1982; Kaplan, 1983; Rutledge, 1977; Sinetar, 1985; Winer, 1983). Both have indirect and direct empirical research links with managerial success. For example, creativity and innovativeness are key characteristics of high need for achievement (nAch) managers (McClelland, 1961, 1985). These managers obtain high levels of professional distinction, large salaries, greater number of subordinates, and achievement of sales goals more rapidly than low nAch managers (McClelland, 1961). Both creativity and innovativeness have been significantly linked to entrepreneurial success (Sinetar, 1985) and to the running of successful mechanical and carpentry shops (Fraser, 1961). Creative managers have good leader-subordinate relations, hold

Requests for reprints should be sent to Leonard H. Chusmir, College of Business & Administration, University of Colorado, 1475 Lawrence St., Denver, CO 80202.

240

OOOl-8791/86 $3.00 Copyright Q 1986 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

CREATIVITY DIFFERENCES 241

strong position power (Deveau, 1976), and are high in problem-solving and decision-making skills (Gillis, 1983; Steiner & Miner, 1982), both critical to managerial success (Williams, Dubrin, & Sisk, 1985) through economy in the use of resources, improved control, improved performance, and increased motivation (Hofer & Schendel, 1978; Thune & House, 1979).

Creativity also has been connected to brainstorming, lateral thinking, and synectics, all important to managerial success via effective strategic planning (Winer, 1983). Creative managers were better able to spot options, create new directions for the firm, deal well with ambiguity and change, distinguish real from imaginary pitfalls, and turn error into opportunity (Sinetar, 1985). The trait is especially important in new product development and design of manufacturing equipment (Steiner & Miner, 1982). Indirectly, creativity was associated with managers who used people-oriented leadership that in turn correlated with work group productivity and high employee morale (Deveau, 1976).

Previous empirical research, however, neglected to examine creativity or innovation with more than one or two job-related attitudes and outcomes or in more than one managerial occupational category at a time. For example, creativity and organization structure were the thrust of several studies (Kaplan, 1983; Kirton, 1978; Kotter, 1982; Wallach, 1983), while creativity and specific personality relationships were examined in others (Bolen & Torrance, 1978; Colby-Morley, 1977; Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson, 1975; Deveau, 1976; Kirton, 1978; Rutledge, 1977). Kirton and Pender (1982) were the only ones to consider differences in innovation by occupational type. Because of the limited scope of these and other research articles, it was difficult to examine more than one relationship at a time.

The present study attempts to remedy that situation by measuring the degree of creativity among a fairly wide variety of managers in different organizational levels and by analyzing the relationship of creativity to several job-related and demographic variables. Because women managers are becoming an increasingly important percentage of the total managerial population, gender differences in creativity are examined in special detail.

Specifically, the study examined the interrelationships among personal variables including creativity, sex, age, schooling, level of needs for achievement (nAch), affiliation (nAtI), power (nPwr), and autonomy (nAut); and job-related variables including tenure on job, hierarchical position, type of organization, job satisfaction, job involvement, propensity to leave, and risk taking.

Creativity is difficult to define in nonoperational terms. There are about as many different definitions as there are persons interested in the subject. But the one most widely used is that it is the occurrence of uncommon or unusual but appropriate responses (Zimbardo & Ruth, 1975). This

242 CHUSMIR AND KOBERG

assumption underlies most of the tests that have been used to measure creativity, including the test used in this study. Innovativeness is an important aspect of creativity, generally referring to the ability to combine elements in a new and different way. While the theoretical definitions of innovation and creativity are somewhat different, the characteristics and pragmatic definitions of both are analogous (Kirton, 1978; Mednick, 1962; Wallach, 1983). Innovativeness is linked to creativity by Sinetar (1985). as one of two behaviors of creative managers who either think creatively or act creatively (innovators), or combine the two. The present research concentrated only on the creativity variable.

Potential sex differences in creativity are not clear. Kogan (1974) did a univariate analysis and found no differences; Bolen and Torrance (1978) used both univariate and multivariate analysis and also found that male students were not significantly more creative in terms of originality and fluency than female students, although the males showed more flexibility in their thinking. Feather (1984) assumed that females more frequently used the right side of their brains and therefore would be more creative. However, one experiment he did showed no gender differences. No one, however, tested managers. Because previous findings on the direction of sex differences in creativity are conflicting, the first research hypothesis is stated as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Significant differences exist between males and females with respect to creativity scores.

Several articles linked risk taking with creativity (Kirton, 1978; Sinetar, 1985; Steiner & Miner, 1982), but did not specify in what direction. However, McClelland (1961) contended that entrepreneurs (innovators) and those high in nAch would take moderate risks rather than very low or very high risks. No previous empirical study was found that directly connected creativity with motivation. But Abbey and Dickson (1983) found that need achievement (nAch) was related to innovativeness in the semiconductor industry, and Torrance (1962) found that creative persons liked to work alone (suggestive of nAch). Other non-research- based writing theorized that creativity would be linked with need for autonomy (nAut) (Bolen & Torrance, 1978; Murphy, 1984; Scheniderman, 1984; Sinetar, 1985) with need for power (nPwr), through the need to be dominant and aggressive (Murphy, 1984), with nAch (Schneiderman, 1984; Wallach, 1983) and with low need affiliation (nAtQ, through not being interested in social matters (Sinetar, 1985). Subjects tested by Bolen and Torrance (1978) and Ducette, Wolf, and Friedman (1972) showed a high correlation between locus of control (related both to nAch and to nPwr) and creativity. For the above reasons, and because most motivation


studies show female and male managers to have similar motivational profiles (Chusmir, 1985), it was expected that

Hypothesis 2: For both males and females, creativity RAT scores will have a positive linear relationship with nAch, nPwr, and nAut. RAT creativity scores will have a curvilinear relationship with propensity for risk taking for both sexes.

Kirton and Pender (1982) tested engineering instructors and research and development personnel and found that both were more innovative than the general population. They concluded that occupational type has significant impact on whether one is likely to be an innovator, suggesting also that it may correlate with level of creativity. As discussed earlier, creativity has been linked to successful management by several writers. Other job-related variables such as job satisfaction, job involvement, and low turnover have been connected to managerial success as well, and for both women and men. Intuitively, then, it was expected that

Hypothesis 3: RAT creativity scores will be positively correlated with job involvement and job satisfaction and negatively linked to propensity to leave for both women and men.

METHOD

Subjects

The convenience sample’ tested consisted of 165 working men and women (69 females and 96 males), all of whom voluntarily agreed to participate and were employed in a variety of jobs in the metropolitan Denver, Colorado, area. Because women hold a disproportionately low percentage of management positions, it was necessary to conduct tests at 11 different companies to obtain a sufficiently large number of female and male volunteers. An attempt was made to keep each testing situation as similar as possible. Numbers of respondents and organizations included five service (n = 74), three manufacturing (n = 39), two retail (n = 26), one nonprofit agency (n = 13), and one wholesale (n = 13). Subjects averaged 41.4 years of age and held positions with the same firm an average of 10.5 years. More than 70% held a college or advanced degree; 29% possessed no degree beyond high school. Of the 165 total, 90 were supervisors (managers whose subordinates were all nonmanagement employees, and whose rank in the organization was below that of department head), 62 were middle managers (managers below the rank of vice president and above the supervisor level), and 13 were executives (persons holding

’ Although a convenience sample presents a potential for bias, to a large extent this problem is shared by most types of organizational research.


one of the top positions in the organization such as vice president, division manager, or chief executive officer).

Instruments

All variables and demographic data analyzed were derived from a single questionnaire instrument administered on site and consisting of standardized scales that had been validated and previously shown to be reliable.

Job satisfaction was measured by using a four-question combination developed by Hoppock (1935) and recently revalidated by McNichols, Stahl, and Manley (1978). Each of the four questions was answered by a ‘I-point Likert-type response format. For purposes of this research, job satisfaction was defined as the degree to which the subject rated his or her level of satisfaction with four aspects of the job, including (1) portion of the time respondent feels satisfied with job, (2) level of liking or disliking of job, (3) attitude toward changing jobs, and (4) job happines compared to other persons. The job satisfaction score was the mean of the four questions: the higher the score, the higher the level of job satisfaction. McNichols et al. (1978) report coefficient cy’s ranging from .76 to .89 across four organizational samples.

Job involvement reflects the “importance of work in the worth of the person” (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965, p. 24). Involvement in the job was determined by the Lodahl and Kejner (1965) short-form questionnaire in which subjects are asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement (using a 4-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree) with each of six statements concerning level of involvement in work and job. Although a low score normally signifies a high level of job involvement, the scoring was reversed to make it consistent with the job satisfaction measure. It should be noted that the 6-item short-form job involvement scale used in this research was designed by Lodahl and Kejner for expediency of administration. The abbreviated scale has a reported split- half reliability of .73 and correlates .87 with the full 20-item job involvement scale. Evidence of its validity also was offered through significant correlations with an extensive list of other variables including but not limited to four of the five satisfaction variables from the JDI job satisfaction measure-satisfaction with work itself (.29), promotion (.38), supervision (.38), and people (.37).

Propensity to leave was determined by a three-item instrument using a Spoint Likert-type scale developed by Lyons (1971). It asks subjects to indicate which of three statements is true concerning (1) their preference to continue working for their present employer, (2) how long they would like to stay with their present company, and (3) how likely it is that they would return to the company if they had to quit work for a while. Correlations among the three items are reported to range from .54 to


.75, and are sufficiently large to permit the assembling of the individual items into a single scale (Lyons, 1971).

Motivation needs were determined by the Manifest Needs Questionnaire (MNQ) (Steers & Braunstein, 1976), which identifies levels of needs for achievement (nAch), power (~&VI-), affiliation (r&I), and autonomy (nAut). The basic research concern of the MNQ centers around manifest needs instead of latent ones, so the measure of needs is based on the manner in which subjects attempt to satisfy them. Therefore, subjects are asked what they do (or attempt to do) on a job rather than what they thought about their jobs. The MNQ consists of 20 statements (5 statements per scale) evaluated on a ‘I-point Likert scale. Respondents are asked to indicate the degree to which the statements (e.g., “I prefer to do my own work and let others do theirs.” “ I try to avoid any added respon- sibilities on my job.“) accurately describe their work behavior. The MNQ has been shown to have acceptable levels of convergent and discriminant validity, and an average test-retest reliability of .78. Coefficient Q’S of .66, .56, .61, and .83 have been reported for the nAch, nAff, nAut, and nPwr scales, respectively, and compare favorably with other summary scales of this type (cf. Rizzo, House, & Liratzman, 1970; Steers & Braunstein, 1976).

Propensity for risk taking was measured via a global j-point Likert- type question calling for a S-point graded self-rating, ranging from very low to high risk taker at work. Validity of the propensity for risk taking measure was determined by correlations with other validated measures. Specifically, the positive correlations found between risk taking and nPwr (r = .23) and nAut (r = .17) would be predicted from theory (Kirton, 1978). The positive correlation with nAch also would be predicted from theory (McClelland, 1961), thus providing some evidence of empirical validity.

To measure creative performance, the Remote Associates Test (RAT) developed by Mednick (1962) was employed. The 30 RAT test items are designed to capture the creative thinking process defined as the “forming of associate elements into new combinations which either meet specified requirements or are in some way useful” (Mednick, 1962, p. 221). As an illustrative item, respondents are presented with three words (cookies, sixteen, and heart) and asked to find a fourth word (sweet) which is related to all three and serves as a specific kind of associated connective link. Scores on the RAT are expressed as the number correct. The RAT has been criticized by some (Cropley, 1973; Hayes, 1978) as being more a measure of verbal skill or IQ than creativity. But even one of its severest critics (Hayes, 1978) admits it is the only standardized measure of creativity that is directly linked to a psychological theory of creativity. Creativity, according to Mednick (1962), involves the ability to form (word) associations that are not normally associated. Highly divergent


or creative people are especially talented at effectively connecting together aspects of their backgrounds which, on the basis of past learning, do not really belong together. Also, it is assumed in the RAT that more creative individuals will make a greater number of associations to stimulus words than less creative persons.

RESULTS

The scale means and standard deviations for the total sample and for each sex are presented in Table 1. Coefficient cr’s between .75 and .91 for the study measures were obtained and compared favorably with that reported for other studies of this type (cf. Steers & Braunstein, 1976).

Contrary to Hypothesis 1 (see Table l), female and male subjects were found not to differ significantly in creative thinking process (univariate two-tailed test of significance, t distribution; Winkler & Hays, 1975). This finding holds regardless of hierarachical rank (t = 0.73, p = .47, & = 88 for supervisory positions; t = 1.89, p = .06, df = 73 for middle and executive positions). It also supports the general observation of Kogan (1974) of a lack of consistent relationship between sex and creativity measures as well as Bolen and Torrance’s (1978) finding, using Torrance’s creativity test, that males were not significantly more creative than females, except for the creative dimension of flexibility in thinking.

Other data from Table 1 indicate that there were no significant gender differences in nAff, nAut, satisfaction, and involvement. These data are consistent with the lack of sex-related differences in satisfaction and motivation reported elsewhere (Golembiewski, 1977; Wherry & South, 1977).

TABLE 1 Scale Means and Standard Deviations For Total Sample and by Sex

Scale

Job satisfaction” Job involvementb Prop to leave’ nAchievemenr’ nAfhliation’ nPower’ nAutonomy8 Risk takingh Creativity (RAT)

Mean

Total Male Female (N = 165) (n = 96) (n = 69)

5.15 5.20 5.07 2.54 2.60 2.45 2.07 1.93 2.22* 5.21 5.36 5.02* 3.91 3.95 3.86 4.44 4.61 4.21* 3.99 4.09 3.84 3.39 3.50 3.23*

19.26 19.21 19.32

Standard deviation

Total Male Female

0.75 0.73 0.73 0.53 0.55 0.48 0.88 0.83 0.91 0.85 0.79 0.90 0.65 0.67 0.61 0.97 0.91 1.01 0.87 0.88 0.86 0.82 0.77 0.88 6.22 5.69 6.93

Note. a,d,ef,g = 7-point Likert scale; b = 4-point Likert scale; c,h = 5-point Likert scale.

* p < .05.


Contrary to observations of Harlan and Weiss (1982) that men and women are similar in their needs for power and achievement, the two sexes differed significantly in nAch (t = 2.54, p = .Ol), nPwr (t = 2.65, p = .Ol), and propensity for risk taking (t = 2.08, p = .04), with males scoring higher than females on all three scales. The two sexes also differed in propensity to leave (t = 2.33, p = .02), with females yielding higher mean propensity scores than males.

Since hierarchical level has been shown to be a confounding variable in previous studies (Hamner & Tosi, 1974; O’Leary, 1974), Table 2 presents the correlations of RAT scores with the study scales for both sexes and by hierarchical level. The intercorrelations obtained for the

TABLE 2 Correlation of RAT Scores with Selected Variables by Sex and by Hierarchical Level

Variable Males Females

Job involvement

Job satisfaction

Propensity to leave

nAch

n Aff

nFwr

nAut

Risk taking

.30* n = 43

.03 n = 53

.13 n=96

.36**

.03

.20* - .57*** - .27* - .42+*

.38**

.18 .26** .Ol

-.18 - .06

.20

.30*

.15*

.09 - .18 -.06

.Ol

.14

.Ol

-.04n = 47 -.lOn = 22 - .05 n = 69 - .05 - .05 - .Ol -.lO

.16 - .07

.07

.09

.03

.35**

.14

.26**

.19 -.15

.lO

.19

.05

.I3 - .22 -.06 - .13

Note. The first row shows the correlation for supervisors or managers whose subordinates were all nonmanagement employees and whose rank in the organization was below that of department level. The second row shows the correlation for middle and upper level managers above the supervisor level, and the third row shows the correlation in the total group.

* p < .05. ** p < .Ol.

*** p < .OOl.


two sexes minimally confirm Hypothesis 2, i.e., that for both men and women creativity (RAT scores) will be positively related to nAch, nPwr, and nAut. A curvilinear relationship with propensity for risk taking was also predicted. Overall for males, creativity (RAT scores) correlated positively with nAch and nPwr. RAT scores also correlated positively with nAch for males in lower level positions and correlated positively with nPwr for males in middle or upper level positions.

The significant correlation of RAT scores with nAff found for women overall and for women in lower level positions’was not expected. Further, the connection with nAff was found to be significantly greater for females overall than for males (z = -2.04; see Croxton & Cowden, 1963, for a test of significance of the difference between two r values). The negligible correlations with propensity for risk taking found for both sexes also was not expected, given the presumed association of creativity with risk (Ku-ton, 1978; Sinetar, 1985). In addition, contrary to Hypothesis 2, the RAT/risk taking relationship was not found to deviate significantly from linearity for both sexes at any level (see Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975 for a test for curvilinearity).

Results in Table 2 also minimally confirm Hypothesis 3, i.e., that for both women and men, RAT creativity scores will be positively correlated with level of satisfaction and involvement and negatively correlated with propensity to leave. Reference to Table 2 indicates that the RAT score is related to job involvement for lower level males and is related to job satisfaction for both lower level males and males overall. The latter connection with job satisfaction was significantly greater for low level males than for low level females (z = 2.05). RAT creativity scores were negatively related to propensity to leave for males regardless of rank. Further, the magnitude of the link between creativity and propensity to leave was found to be significantly greater for lower level males and males overall than for corresponding females (z = -2.50; z = -2.38). No significant link to any job outcome variable (satisfaction, involvement, or propensity to leave) was found for women at any level.

In other analyses, multiple regression analysis was performed to examine the relative contribution of the several independent variables to RAT creativity scores for males and females. Two regression equations, each with an obtained significant p value, were produced and are shown in Table 3. These data show that for males, need for achievement was a significant predictor of RAT creativity scores. For females, need for affiliation was a predictor of RAT creativity scores. Also for females, age, education level, and hierarchical level were positive predictors; and organizational tenure and propensity for risk taking were negative predictors of RAT creativity scores. Despite the differences in the regression coefficients and in the overall pattern of relationships for males and females, no significant differences between the individual p weights for the two


TABLE 3 Standardized Regression Beta Weights (Coeffi-

cients) for Males and Females and Selected Variables

Variable

Tenure Age Education Hierarchical level nAch n Aff n&r nAut Risk taking Multiple R R2

* p < .05. ** p < .Ol.

Males (n = 96)

.I6

.14

.Ol -.09

.30* - .07

.03 - .08 -.02

.40

.16

Females (n = 69)

- .37** .33* .22* .33* .03 .36**

-.04 .23

- .30* .59 .35

sexes were found (see Cohen & Cohen, 1983, for a test of differences between two independent p weights).

DISCUSSION

Results of this study tend to suggest two somewhat different profiles for creative male and female managers. While their overall levels of creativity are not significantly different, the relationships between RAT creativity scores and motivational needs are somewhat different. For men, creativity is linked with nAch, but for females creativity is related to nAff. While speculative, this suggests that traditional socialization forces may still be at work. It may be that men are more comfortable than women in creativity through competition and problem solving, while women may have more confidence and/or experience than men in being highly creative in their handling of social relationships. Also, results show that more highly creative men are found at low levels in the hierarchy, but the most creative women are those in higher organization jobs. It is not known why this occurs, but one possibility is that women managers may believe they first have to prove their competence (to themselves or to others) in entry level management positions before they can take the risk of being creative in their jobs. Men, on the other hand, are expected by society to be competent in managerial roles, and may feel freer to be more flexible and creative in their work at an earlier management stage.


Women managers in this study had a higher propensity to leave their organizations than their male colleagues. Yet, level of job satisfaction and job involvement-important predictors of turnover-were the same. This indicates that factors other than the job itself may influence women’s desire to leave. Female subjects held a disproportionately larger number of low level mangement jobs, and while they may like their jobs as much as the males, they may be more dissatisfied with external rewards such as pay, status, or advancement opportunities. Future research is suggested to determine what additional factors may be involved.

For men managers, propensity to leave had a very strong but negative relationship with creativity: the higher the creativity the less likely men were to leave the organization. For women, the relationship was in the same direction but nonsignificant. Since level of creativity was the same for both genders, women managers’ expectations of using creative talents at work may be much lower than those of male managers, and therefore not a major reason to leave or stay. Again, future studies seem warranted.

Since multiple regression analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the p weights for the two sexes, the interpretation of gender differences must be made with caution. The correlation analysis and the general pattern of relationships seem to indicate gender dilferences. Yet the failure to find significant differences in p weights for the two sexes raises questions about whether the gender differences indicated by the regression coefficients are stable differences or are generalizable across samples. Thus, replication of the results on different organizational samples is needed.

As discussed earlier, the RAT-like most measures of psychological characteristics or traits-has been subject to criticism as to whether it actually measures creativity versus verbal fluency or general intelligence. In the same vein, the question often is raised as to whether a high score in any paper-and-pencil test of creativity, including the RAT, is predictive of actual creative behavior in the work place. Motivation and personality theorists might argue that most similar traits generally do predict specific behaviors, while on the other hand, studies attempting to link the two often fail to do so, or do so with mixed results. These issues go beyond the scope of this paper, but should be examined. The use of the RAT in this study, however, is defended on the basis of very thorough validation and reliability studies, by its being based on a generally accepted psychological theory of creativity, by its simplicity, brevity, and ease of administration, and by its popularity as a measure of creativity in other research.

One of the limitations of this study is the relatively heterogeneous sample obtained from a wide variety of organizations. This was due in large measure to the common practical problem of finding enough women managers in organizations that also employ a sufficient number of male


managers in similar positions. This problem does reduce the ability to generalize to a specific population. An attempt was made to gather data from all levels of management (90 low level, 62 middle level, and 13 top level) to help make the sample as representative as possible.

Results from this study suggest several career implications. Since creativity has been connected to successful management by many writers, individuals aspiring to advance in a corporation might consider attending training workshops designed to increase their creativity. They appear to work very well because they instill a belief in participants of the value of creative thinking and of its importance to quality group decision making (Steiner & Miner, 1982). Training also may be effective because it forces participants to generate solution alternatives.

Creativity and innovativeness are particularly important to entrepreneurial activity, historically associated with male owners. Yet, results of this study show that among high level managers-those most apt to run their own entrepreneurial businesses-females are proportionately more creative than their male counterparts. This may give women a competitive edge in an entrepreneurial business, and act as a further encouragement to enter this traditionally male occupation. On the other hand, if the finding that women’s creativity is linked with nAff rather than with nAch is replicated, its possibly negative effects (since it is generally accepted that high nAff behaviors are detrimental to managers) need consideration. Special effort seems warranted for women managers to redirect their creative thinking toward competitive and problem-solving behaviors if they also happen to possess high nAff motivation.

Finally, creative managers may not be welcomed in bureaucratic cultures where the organization’s task is well defined (Kit-ton, 1978), in that their creativity disturbs the status quo (Sinetar, 19SS) and points the firm in directions it may not want to go. Therefore, individuals high in creative thinking may be better off if they consider careers with companies that possess innovative cultures that encourage and reward nonconformist and creative behavior.

REFERENCES Abbey, A., & Dickson, J. W. (1983). R & D work climate and innovation in semiconductors,

Academy of Management Journal, 26, 362-368. Bolen, L. M., & Torrance, E. P. (1978). The influence of creative thinking on locus of

control, cooperation, and sex. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34, 903-907. Chusmir, L. H. (1985). Motivation of managers: Is gender a factor? Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 9, 153-159. Colby-Morley, E. L. (1977). Creativity and personality: Cognitive styles as a determinate

of ideation and behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 4-B, 1872-1873. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the

behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cropley, A. J. (1973). S-R psychology and cognitive psychology. In P. E. Vernon (Ed.),

Creativity. (chap. 11, p. 116). New York: Penguin Education/Hammendsworth.


Croxton, F. E., & Cowden, D. J. (1963). Applied general statistics (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Deveau, R. J. (1976). The relationships between the leadership effectiveness of first-line supervisors and measures of authoritarianism, creativity, general intelligence and leadership style. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 3-A, 1360-1361.

Ducette, J., Wolf, S., & Friedman, S. (1972). Locus of control and creativity in black and white children. Journal of Social Psychology, 88, 297-298.

Feather, F. (1984). Geo-strategic thinking . . . and its courageous application to planning. Managerial Planning, 33, 4-8.

Fraser, T. M. (1961). Achievement motivation as a factor in rural development: A report on research in western orissn. Upublished paper, Haverford, PA: Haverford College.

Gillis, J. G. (1983). Creativity, problem solving and decision making. Journal of Systems Management, 40-42.

Golembiewski, R. (1977). Testing some stereotypes about the sexes in organizations: Dif- ferential satisfaction with work? Human Resource Management, 16, 30-32.

Grossman, S. R. (1982). Training creativity and creative problem solving. Training & Development Journal, 36, 62-68.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Grablowsky, B. J. (1979). Multivariate data analysis. Tulsa, OK: Petroleum Publishing Co.

Hamner, W. C., & Tosi, H. L. (1974). Relationships of role conflict and role ambiguity to job involvement measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 497-499.

Harlan, A., & Weiss, C. L. (1982). Sex differences in factors affecting managerial career advancement. In P. A. Wallace (Ed.), Women in the workplace. Boston, MA: Auburn House.

Hayes, J. R. (1978). Cognitive psychology: Thinking and creativity. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Hofer, C. W., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul,

MN: West. Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York: Harper & Row. Kanter, R. (1982). The middle manager as innovator. Harvard Business Review, 60, 90-

105. Kaplan, R. E. (1983). The perils of intensive management training and how to avoid them.

Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 14, 756-770. Kirton, M. J. (1978). Adaptors and innovators in culture clash. Current Anthropology, 19,

611-612. Kirton, M. J. (1980). Adaptors and innovators in organizations. Human Relations, 3, 213-

224. Kirton, M. J. (1984). Adaptors and innovators-Why new initiatives get blocked. Long

Range Planning, 17, 137-143. Kirton, M. J., & Pender, S. (1982). The adaption-innovation continuum, occupational

type, and course selection, Psychological Reports, 51, 883-886. Kogan, N. (1974). Creativity and sex differences. Journal of Creative Behavior, 8, l-14. Kotter, J. P. (1982). What effective general managers really do. Harvard Business Review,

60, 156-167. Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24-33. Lyons, T. F. (1971). Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension, and withdrawal.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 99-l 10. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society, New York: Free Press. McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. McNichols, C. W., Stahl, M. J., & Manley, T. R. (1978). A valuation of Hoppock’s job

satisfaction measure. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 737-742.


Massy, W. F. (1971). Discriminant analysis of audience characteristics. In D. A. Aaker (Ed.), Multivariate analysis in marketing: Theory and application. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220-232.

Murphy, T. P. (1984). Eureka! Forbes, May 7, p. 218. Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, 0. H. (1975). Statistical

package for the social sciences (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill. O’Leary, V. (1974). Some attitudinal barriers to occupational aspirations in women. Psy-

chological Bulletin, 81, 809-826. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Liratzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in

complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163. Rutledge, W. J. (1977). A study of the relationships between the leader effectiveness and

adaptability description and the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Dissertation Abstracts, 38, lOA, 5914.

Schneiderman, G. (1984). Maximizing creativity: The individual and the system. Financial Analysts Journal, 76-78.

Sinetar, M. (1985). SMR forum: Entrepreneurs, chaos, and creativity-Can creative people really survive large company structure? Sloan Management Review, 57-62.

Steers, R. M., & Braunstein, D. N. (1976). A behavioral-based measure of manifest needs in work settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 251-266.

Steiner, G. A., & Miner, J. B. (1982). Management policy and strategy (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Co.

Thune, S. S., IQ House, R. H. (1979). Where long-range planning pays off. Business Horizons, 13,(4), 81-87.

Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Wallach, E. J. (1983). Individuals and organizations: The cultural match. Training and

Development Journal, February, 29-36. Wherry, R., & South, J. (1977). A worker motivation scale. Personnel Psychology, 30,

613-636. Whetton, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (1984). Developing management skills. Glenview, IL:

Scott, Foresman. Williams, J. C., Dubrin, A. J., & Sisk, H. L. (1985). Management and organization.

Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern Publishing Co. Winer, L. (1983). How to add goal-directed creativity to planning. Managerial Planning,

32, 30-36. Winkler, R. L., & Hays, W. L. (1975). Statistics: Probability, inference, and decision (2nd

ed.). San Francisco: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Zimbardo, P. G., & Ruth, F. L. (1975). Psychology and life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Received: May 10, 1986.

creativity differences among managers

Documents