Is Perceived Creativity‐Reward Contingency Good for Creativity? The Role of Challenge and Threat Appraisals

• Author: Kwok Leung,Hong Deng,Yang Zhao,Fuli Li
• Date: 01 July 2017
• Published date: 01 July 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21795

Human Resource Management, July–August 2017, Vol. 56, No. 4. Pp. 693–709

© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21795

Correspondence to: Hong Deng, Manchester Business School, Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK,

Phone:(44) 0161 820 8343, E-mail: xhxghome@gmail.com.

facilitate creativity (Zhou & Oldham, 2001; Zhou

& Shalley, 2003). The use of extrinsic rewards

such as monetary rewards and management rec-

ognition (Fairbank & Williams, 2001; van Dijk &

van den Ende, 2002) has a long history in orga-

nizations (Klotz, Wheeler, Halbesleben, Brock, &

Buckley, 2011; Zhou & Shalley, 2003), and reward

programs are commonly used to spur creative

performance.

Employee creativity is crucial to organiza-

tional growth and its effectiveness and sur-

vival (Kanter, 1983; Nonaka, 1991). When

employees exhibit workplace creativity,

they generate novel and potentially useful

ideas concerning organizational products, prac-

tices, services, or procedures (Shalley & Gilson,

2004). There has been considerable interest in

understanding which management practices can

IS PERCEIVED CREATIVITY-

REWARD CONTINGENCY GOOD

FOR CREATIVITY? THE ROLE

OF CHALLENGE AND THREAT

APPRAISALS

FULI LI, HONG DENG, KWOK LEUNG, AND YANG ZHAO

To address the complex effect of perceived reward for creativity on creative

performance, we examined the role of cognitive appraisal as an individual dif-

ference variable. An individual’s appraisal of reward for creativity, including chal-

lenge appraisal (perceived potential for recognition, growth, or mastery) and

threat appraisal (perceived potential for revealing incompetence and damaging

self-respect), is hypothesized to shape the effects of perceived reward for creativ-

ity. We further expect creativity-related intrinsic motivation to play a mediating

role in the perceived reward-creativity relationship. The results of a three-wave

fi eld study showed that when challenge appraisal was high, perceived reward

was positively related to creative performance through creativity-related intrin-

sic motivation, whereas when threat appraisal was high, perceived reward was

negatively related to creative performance through creativity-related intrinsic

motivation. A similar analysis showed that intrinsic task motivation was not able

to channel the moderating effect of perceived reward and individual appraisal on

creative performance. ©2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: creativity, perception, research methods and design–quantitative

research methodology

694 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2017

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Despite the popularity

of the use of extrinsic

rewards to drive

creativity, conclusive

evidence is not yet

available from field

studies concerning

the effects of

extrinsic rewards on

creativity.

1996; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), which

emphasizes the joint effects of individual dif-

ferences and rewards, a variable derived from

the context. Drawing on this perspective, this

research aims to develop a theoretical framework

with a focus on how individuals’ characteristics

account for the mixed relationship between per-

ceived reward and creativity via intrinsic motiva-

tion. In spite of the divergence between the two

camps of researchers with different theoretical

orientations, they converge on the critical role of

competence assessment. Both camps agree that if

extrinsic rewards are perceived to convey positive

information about one’s competence, they would

increase intrinsic motivation (e.g., Deci, Koestner,

& Ryan, 1999; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Eisenberger,

1992; Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997). The individual

difference perspective suggests that the perceived

meaning of reward for creativity is important in

determining its effect on intrinsic motivation and,

hence, creativity. Reward for creativity may imbue

a variety of meanings and can be perceived as

providing an opportunity to acquire recognition

or appreciation, respect and personal develop-

ment (cf. the reflection theory of compensation;

Thierry, 2001). We base our theorizing on the well-

established transactional theory of stress (Lazarus

& Folkman, 1984) because contexts characterized

by social evaluation constitute a type of psycho-

logical stressor (cf. Byron, Khazanchi, & Nazarian,

2010). Reward for creativity involves social evalu-

ation and can be viewed as a potentially psycho-

logical stressor. In fact, research has associated

performance-contingent reward with stress-induc-

ing conditions such as time pressure, continuous

monitoring of performance, and uncertainty of

outcomes (Shirom, Westman, & Melamed, 1999)

and found it to be stressful (Landy, Quick, & Kasl,

1994).

The conceptualization of reward for creativ-

ity as a stressor makes the transactional theory of

stress highly relevant for analyzing its effects on

creativity. Drawing on this theoretical framework,

we introduce the notion of cognitive appraisal to

the reward context and propose that individual

appraisal of the meaning of reward for creativity

is a key individual difference that influences the

responses to such a reward. Given the fact that fail-

ure is likely in creative endeavors (Harackiewicz &

Sansone, 2000), the contingent reward for creativ-

ity constitutes as much a threat to lose as a chance

to win. The fear of failure would make such

reward threatening even if it is designed to convey

positive competence information (Harackiewicz &

Sansone, 2000). The major objective of the pres-

ent research is to develop a person-reward inter-

action model that examines how individuals’

Despite the popularity of the use of extrinsic

rewards to drive creativity, conclusive evidence

is not yet available from field studies concerning

the effects of extrinsic rewards on creativity. A

number of field studies have reported a nonsig-

nificant relationship between perceived reward

for creativity and employee creativity (e.g., Baer,

Oldham, & Cummings, 2003; Dewett, 2002; Eder,

2007; George & Zhou, 2002; Yoon, Choi, Lee, &

Kim, 2009). As a result, Zhou and Shalley (2003,

pp. 204–205) have urged researchers to “system-

atically untangle the complexity of the impact of

rewards on creativity in the workplace.”

To address this issue, it is important to exam-

ine the process underlying the relation between

perceived reward and intrinsic motivation (Baer

et al., 2003), which is a key driver of creativity

(Amabile, 1979; Shin & Zhou, 2003). Intrinsic

motivation, which refers to “motivation that

arises from the individual’s positive

reaction to qualities of the task itself;

this reaction can be experienced

as interest, involvement, curiosity,

satisfaction or positive challenge”

(Amabile, 1996, p. 115), has long

been argued as a pivotal mediator

that channels the effects of anteced-

ent variables on creativity (Amabile,

1988, 1996). In fact, the debate on

the effects of extrinsic rewards on

creativity is essentially centered on

its relationship with intrinsic moti-

vation. Researchers with a social-

cognitive orientation argue that

extrinsic rewards reduce intrinsic

motivation and creativity due to

lowered self-determination and the

overjustification effect (Amabile,

1996; Hennessey & Amabile, 1988). In contrast,

behaviorally oriented researchers argue that extrin-

sic rewards increase perceived self-determination,

thus facilitating intrinsic motivation (Eisenberger

& Cameron, 1996; Eisenberger, Pierce & Cameron,

1999) and creativity (Eisenberger & Aselage, 2009).

This debate has not been settled as empirical

field evidence is rather mixed. For instance, Eden

(1975) reported a negative correlation between

the perception of extrinsic rewards and intrinsic

motivation, but Eisenberger and Aselage (2009)

found a positive correlation between them.

Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham (2004) suggested

that the role of individual differences should be

considered because individuals with different

characteristics or orientations may respond differ-

ently to extrinsic rewards. Their proposal echoes

the view of person-context interaction (e.g.,

George & Zhou, 2001; Oldham & Cummings,