Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 08832320903258535
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Working Environment and the Research
Productivity of Doctoral Students in Management
Kiwan Kim & Steven J. Karau
To cite this article: Kiwan Kim & Steven J. Karau (2009) Working Environment and the Research
Productivity of Doctoral Students in Management, Journal of Education for Business, 85:2,
101-106, DOI: 10.1080/08832320903258535
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320903258535
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 73
View related articles
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:28
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 85: 101–106, 2010
C Heldref Publications
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323
DOI: 10.1080/08832320903258535
Working Environment and the Research Productivity
of Doctoral Students in Management
Kiwan Kim and Steven J. Karau
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:28 11 January 2016
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, USA
The authors examined the influence of creative personality and creative working environment
on the research productivity of doctoral students in business. Students in management doctoral
programs (N = 200) participated in an online survey. The results show that faculty support
was positively associated with research productivity. Among demographic predictors, doctoral
candidacy and years in one’s present program were also positively associated with research
productivity. The emergence of faculty support as the only significant environmental predictor
of research productivity highlights the unique importance of faculty support, encouragement,
and mentoring in developing the research potential of doctoral management students.
Keywords: Creative personality, Creative working environment, Doctoral students, Faculty
support, Research productivity
A central concern in doctoral education is preparing students
for future careers that require strong research skills. Thus, it
is important to identify factors that might support research
capability and productivity. Identifying such factors would
allow faculty and administrators to focus energy and attention on those specific aspects of the graduate school environment that are most likely to yield improvements in research
productivity. Unfortunately, little research has examined either work environment or individual difference influences on
the research productivity of doctoral students. Most creativity scholars have focused on business organizations, paying
little attention to the implications of creative working environment for academic organizations and doctoral programs.
Yet, in order to carry out research successfully, doctoral students are likely to need access to key resources and support from faculty, peers, and family. In the present study, we
sought to address these gaps in the literature by examining
the influence of creative working environment and creative
personality on the research productivity of doctoral students.
Thus, our research makes a distinctive contribution by applying personality and situational variables that have been
previously shown to affect creative performance in business
contexts to the new context of academic business research us-
Correspondence should be addressed to Steven J. Karau, Department of
Management, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA. E-mail:
skarau@cba.siu.edu
ing a sample of doctoral management students in the United
States.
In agreement with many prior discussions (Amabile,
Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Ford, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), we define creativity as the
production of useful and novel products or ideas. In the
broader organizational context, considerable prior research
suggests that employee creativity contributes to organizational performance. Organizational scholars have identified
a variety of contextual factors that may enhance employee
creativity, including support from supervisors (Deci & Ryan,
1985, 1987) and colleagues (Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002;
Zhou & George, 2001), adequate resources (Scott & Bruce,
1994), autonomy (Amabile et al.), and appropriate levels
of time pressure (Amabile, 1988). In the context of doctoral business programs, these factors logically extend to
support from faculty and fellow students, adequate research
and other resources, control over one’s own work, and appropriate temporal expectations. In contrast, factors such as
conservatism, role conflict, and internal strife may inhibit
employees from translating creativity into increased performance (Kimberley & Evanisko, 1981). Several influential
perspectives (e.g., Amabile et al.; West & Farr, 1990; Woodman et al) have overlapped in the identification of individual
differences, work-related resources, and social influences as
important influences on individual creative capacity. Consistent with those broader prior viewpoints on business organizations, we focused our study on creative personality, faculty
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:28 11 January 2016
102
K. KIM AND S. J. KARAU
support, family support, colleague support, research resources, and workload pressures.
Personality and environmental factors are likely to affect creativity. Regarding personality, many researchers have
proposed that creativity is closely related to cognitive ability or style (Ford, 1996), personality (Amabile; Barron &
Harrington, 1981), and knowledge (Ford). In particular, a
creative person may have characteristics such as originality, flexibility, elaboration, intuition, divergent thinking, curiosity, self-confidence, and energy (Amabile; Barron &
Harrington; Ford). Oldham and Cummings (1996) characterized highly creative people as capable, clever, intelligent, inventive, and reflective, and characterized less creative people
as cautious, conservative, and mannerly. These viewpoints
suggest that people with certain characteristics perform well
in creative contexts. Because successful research requires
doctoral students to generate ideas, develop sound research
designs, and analyze complex data, we predicted that creative
personality would be positively associated with the research
productivity of doctoral students.
Hypothesis 1(H 1 ): The individual creative personality of doctoral students is positively associated with research productivity.
Regarding environmental factors, prior creativity research
on business organizations has suggested that productivity
on work that requires creativity can be enhanced by support from the organization or supervisor (Amabile et al.;
Scott & Bruce, 1994), support from family and friends
(Madjar et al., 2002), the availability of sufficient resources
(Amabile et al.; Scott & Bruce), appropriate workload
pressures (Amabile), and freedom or autonomy (Amabile
et al.; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Scott & Bruce). A number of studies have demonstrated that supervisory style influences employee creativity at work (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985,
1987; Shalley, 1991). Supportive supervisors show concern
for employees’ feelings and needs, encourage the expression
of opinions, promote interest in work activities, and provide
positive feedback (Deci & Ryan, 1985). In doctoral education, the complexities involved with research projects may
enhance the importance of mentoring and supervision in allowing students to understand how to translate their creative
ideas into feasible research projects and papers. Consistent
with this logic, Weidman and Stein (2003) suggested that
social interactions between students and faculty stimulate a
student’s research productivity by creating a supportive environment. With this evidence in mind, we reasoned that
faculty support would enhance doctoral students’ research
productivity.
H 2 : Support from faculty is positively associated with research productivity.
Research on stress and burnout has shown that support
from family members and friends outside of the workplace
can help people cope with negative aspects of the workplace
(e.g., Ryan & Miller, 1994) and can also enhance positive outcomes such as creative performance (e.g., Koestner, Walker,
& Fichman, 1999; Madjar et al., 2002). We expected these
more general findings to also apply to the academic research
context, such that psychological and social support from family and friends would have a positive influence on research
productivity.
H 3 : Support from family and friends is positively associated
with research productivity.
A variety of studies suggest that collaboration among diverse associates has a positive association with creative performance. For example, Kasperson (1978) suggested that scientists that interact across disciplines make a more innovative
contribution. Payne (1990) found that internal and external
group communication had a positive association with team
performance. Scott and Bruce (1994) found that the cohesiveness of a work group influenced members’ willingness
to voice their ideas and opinions. Consistent with this prior
work, we reasoned that doctoral students who get support
from colleagues would attain higher levels of research productivity.
H 4 : Support from colleagues is positively associated with
research productivity.
Many scholars have claimed that the provision of adequate resources is closely related to organizational performance (Damanpour, 1991; Delbecq & Mills, 1985). Besides
the obvious practical limitations of extreme resource restrictions, individuals’ views about the sufficiency of resources
can also influence their perceptions of the intrinsic value of
projects (Farr & Ford, 1990; Payne, 1990). In a similar vein,
educational researchers have argued that resource availability can have an impact on academic performance. A study
of accounting professors found that the availability of resources such as research assistants, information technology,
and editorial help contributed to research productivity (King
and Henderson, 1991). Brewer and Brewer (1990) found that
research productivity was related to perceptions of the availability of research resources such as research assistants, secretarial help, computers, and libraries. These general findings
are also likely applicable to the context of doctoral students in
management. Therefore, we predicted that research resources
would be positively related with research productivity.
H 5 : Research resources are positively associated with research productivity.
Although excessive workload pressures might undermine
creativity, prior research has shown that some degree of
pressure can actually promote creativity when individuals perceive the pressure as appropriate to the inherent
challenges of the work (Amabile). Similarly, time pressure has been found to promote creativity in research and
RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY OF DOCTORAL STUDENTS
development scientists, except when that pressure reached an
undesirably high level (Andrews & Farris, 1972). Regarding
doctoral students, workload pressures are likely to come
from coursework, research projects, and assistantship work.
Given that these pressures would likely be viewed as reasonable and necessary to the academic enterprise, we predicted
that workload pressures would be positively associated with
research productivity among doctoral students.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:28 11 January 2016
H 6 : Workload pressures are positively associated with research productivity.
In summary, we hypothesized that creative personality
and five work environment factors—support from faculty,
support from family and friends, support from colleagues,
research resources, and workload pressures—would all have
a positive influence on doctoral students’ research productivity. We tested these hypotheses using an internet survey
of doctoral management students. We assessed all predictor
variables using established, previously validated measures,
and assessed research productivity based on total scholarly
output during a 5-year period.
METHOD
Setting, Participants, and Procedure
We recruited doctoral students in management and
management-related areas from business schools in the
United States. Using the Carnegie Classification (Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2000) and
business school accreditation Web sites, we identified 103
business schools that offered doctoral degrees in management
and management-related areas. We included departments labeled (by the business school) as management departments
or departments of traditional management areas (e.g., organizational behavior, organization theory, strategy, human
resources, international business, entrepreneurship, production and operations, decision science, management science,
supply-chain management, information technology, management information systems). We also included doctoral students in departments housed in business schools and labeled
as areas related to management (e.g., industrial and organizational psychology, industrial and labor relations, small
business, and project management).
Using university, college, and department Web sites for
these programs, we identified a total of 943 e-mail addresses
of doctoral students. We contacted prospective participants
in two waves (separated by 6 weeks) by e-mail to invite them
to participate in our online survey. The first wave produced
186 responses (165 useable), and the second wave produced
an additional 45 responses (35 useable). Thus, the final sample size constituted of 200 participants (54.5% men, 45.5%
women), representing a response rate of 21.2%. Within this
final sample, 63% of respondents were married (with a M
103
of 0.72 children, SD = 1.03) and 48% were doctoral candidates (i.e., had attained ABD status). The mean time at each
individual’s present program was 2.95 years (SD = 1.57).
Measures
For our predictor variables, we selected previously validated
instruments with good-to-excellent internal consistency and
good apparent face validity. Where possible, we also selected
fairly brief scales to keep the length of our survey reasonable
and encourage participation. For research productivity, we
used a self-report measure of total scholarly manuscripts
accepted for publication or presentation during a five-year
period.
Creative Personality
We measured creative personality using the 30-item Creative Personality Score index (CPS; Gough, 1979). This index has been used frequently to assess creative personality
(Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Gough demonstrated convergence between the CPS and expert ratings of the creativity
levels of individuals in a variety of creative contexts. Respondents are given 30 adjectives and asked to check all
that describe themselves well. A score of “+1” is assigned to
adjectives typical of creative people, and a score of “–1” is assigned to adjectives atypical of creative people, with possible
total scores ranging from –12 to 18. Oldham and Cummings
reported a reliability of.70 for the CPS. The reliability in the
present study was .67.
Support from Faculty
We adopted 7 items from Weidman and Stein (2003;
α = .84, items assessed using 7-point scales). Items assessed
the extent to which faculty were accessible, aware of student
concerns, engaging students in scholarly activities, and were
available to discuss academic and other matters (α = .83 in
the present sample).
Support from Colleagues
We used the 7-item scale from Podsakoff, Ahearne, and
Mackenzie (1997; α = .95). Items asked respondents how
much their colleagues were helpful in work, sharing their expertise, and encouraging one another (α = .92 in the present
sample).
Support from Family and Friends
We measured support from family and friends with the
4-item scale developed by Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison,
and Pinneau (1975; α = .86). Items addressed the degree to
which family and friends were willing to support individuals
and help them deal with work responsibilities (α = .80 in the
present sample).
104
K. KIM AND S. J. KARAU
Research Resources
on research productivity (H 1 ), over and above demographic
variables. This model indicates that creative personality did
not explain significant variability in research productivity
and that the addition of CPS made no incremental contribution to R2. Hence, Hypothesis 1 was not supported. Model
3 tested the influence of faculty support (H 2 ), family and
friend support (H 3 ), support from colleagues (H 4 ), research
resources (H 5 ), and workload pressures (H 6 ) on research
productivity, controlling for creative personality and demographic variables. The results show that there was only one
significant relationship between creative-environment variables and research productivity: Namely, faculty support had
a significant, positive relationship with research productivity. Hence, H 2 was supported but H 3–6 were not supported.
The addition of creative-environment variables produced a
significant increase in R2, indicating that environmental factors added significant explanatory power over demographic
predictors and personality and explained an additional 5% of
the variance in research productivity.
We employed a 6-item scale from Scott and Bruce (1994;
α = .77). Items assessed the degree to which adequate resources, assistance, funding, and personnel were available to
support creativity and innovation. We made slight wording
changes in some items in order to make them appropriate to
an academic organization (α = .82 in the present sample).
Workload Pressures
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:28 11 January 2016
We measured workload pressures using the 5-item scale
from Hamel and Bracken (1986; α = .81). Items asked how
frequently the job required a lot of work to be done in a
limited amount of time (α = . 86 in the present sample).
Research Productivity
Using separate questions, we asked respondents to report
how many journal articles, conference proceedings or presentations, books, and chapters in edited books they had published or presented during the previous 6 years (2002–2006).
Initial analyses showed the same general pattern of results
whether we used individual measures or indices that combined across measures. Thus, we present our results in terms
of a total research productivity index that adds journal articles, conference papers, books, and book chapters.
DISCUSSION
Our results show that support from faculty has a significant
impact on the research productivity of management doctoral
students. This result is consistent with previous findings from
business organizations (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1987) as
well as with prior educational research (Weidman & Stein,
2003). The present results extend this prior work to doctoral
management education and suggest that faculty support is
important to the development of research skills and resulting
research productivity. Given the absence of other significant
predictors of research productivity, each of which had been
shown to be important in prior organizational studies, faculty support may take on special importance. With the many
complexities, subtleties, and judgment calls that can arise in
research projects, our results suggest that a primary avenue
RESULTS
We tested our hypotheses using multiple regression analyses.
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations.
Table 2 presents our key analyses. Model 1 shows that demographic variables explained 24% of the total variance in research productivity. Among significant demographic predictors, doctoral candidacy and years at the individual’s present
program were both positively associated with research productivity. Model 2 tested the effect of creative personality
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variable
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
1. Gender
2. Marital status
3. Number or children
4. Years in program
5. Status
6. Creativity (CPS)
7. Faculty support
8. Family support
9. Colleague support
10. Research resources
11. Workload pressures
0.52
0.65
0.72
2.95
0.56
6.04
3.75
4.25
3.38
5.06
5.03
0.55
0.50
1.03
1.57
0.53
3.54
0.74
0.77
0.78
1.06
1.17
—
–.03
–.13
.01
–.12
–.08
.00
.06
–.04
.03
.05
—
.42
.03
.06
−.02
.02
.08
–.02
.04
.08
—
.04
.08
–.11
.00
.10
.04
–.00
.00
—
.61∗∗
.06
–.16∗
.15∗
–.03
.06
–.03
—
.14∗
–.01
.08
.04
.12
.02
6
7
8
9
10
11
—
.34∗∗
.48∗∗
.62∗∗
.19∗∗
—
.40∗∗
.32∗∗
.16∗
—
.39∗∗
.12
—
.03
—
—
.05
–.01
.03
.02
.09
Note. Variables were coded as the following: Male = 0, Female = 1; Not married = 0, Married = 1; Non-ABD = 0, ABD = 1.
< .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
∗p
RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY OF DOCTORAL STUDENTS
TABLE 2
Research Productivity as a Function of
Demographics, CPS, and Work Environment
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:28 11 January 2016
Variable
Demographic (β)
Genderb
Marital statusc
Number of children
Degree candidacyd
Years at current program
CPS (β)
Work environment(β)
Faculty support
Family support
Research resources
Workload pressures
Colleague support
R2
Adjusted R2
F
df
Incremental R2
Incremental F
df
Model 1
(control
model)
Model 2
(controls +
CPS)
Model 3
(full model)
.06
–.06
–.07
.24∗∗
.29∗∗
.05
–.05
–.07
.25∗∗
.29∗∗
–.04
.06
–.05
–.06
.22∗
.34∗∗∗
–.05
.24
.21
8.96∗∗∗
(6, 172)
.00
.37
(1, 172)
.21∗
–.10
.08
–.07
–.06
.29
.25
6.29∗∗∗
(11, 167)
.05
2.59∗
(5, 167)
.24
.21
10.72∗∗∗
(5, 173)
Note. Variables were coded as the following: Male = 0, Female = 1;
Not married = 0, Married = 1; Non-ABD = 0, ABD = 1. CPS = Creative
Personality Score index (H. G. Gough, 1979).
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
for enhancing doctoral students’ research skills is the active
support, involvement, and mentoring of faculty members.
The hypotheses that did not receive support are also interesting. Because past studies have shown creative personality
to be a significant predictor of creative performance in business organizations, it is intriguing that those results did not
extend to research productivity in the present study. With regard to family support, colleague support, research resources,
and workload pressures, none of these variables showed a
significant relationship with research productivity within the
present sample. One plausible general interpretation for all of
these null results concerns range restriction issues. Doctoralgranting research-oriented universities are likely to provide
at least adequate research resources to doctoral students and
often select those students from large applicant pools based
partially on their creativity, research capabilities, and prior
research accomplishments. Thus, our participants may share
many similarities in that they have a higher creative personality (M = 6.09, SD = 3.54) than employees in manufacturing
companies studied in prior work (M = 0.15 in Madjar et al.,
2002; M = 4.26 in Oldham & Cummings, 1996). It would
be a promising research area to examine these same predictors in a wider variety of academic contexts and university
environments.
With regard to demographic variables, the status of
doctoral students was a significant predictor of research
105
productivity, meaning that students who had reached degree
candidacy had higher research productivity than non-ABD
students. Similarly, the year in the individual’s present program was also a significant predictor, indicating that tenure
within a doctoral program is associated with research productivity. These results are likely attributable to more experienced students having more research experience and contact
with faculty as well as having accumulated more time to conduct research projects that have progressed through the peer
review process.
Although our research takes an important first step of examining creative personality and creative work-environment
influences on research productivity among business doctoral
students, it also had some limitations that might be addressed
by future researchers. First, our response rate of 21.2% raises
the possibility that the sample might not be representative of
all management doctoral students. Similarly, our focus on
management students (chosen to allow a common basis of
research comparison) did not allow us to draw broader conclusions about the full scope of research productivity in all
business majors or to wider disciplinary contexts. Second,
although environmental factors explained significant incremental variability in research productivity, the addition to
R2 was small (5%). Overall, all predictors explained 29%
of variance, suggesting that most of the variance in research
productivity is explained by other factors not examined in
the present research. Additional environment variables implicated in productivity and stress literature, such as role conflict
and role ambiguity, could be studied by future researchers.
Third, our use of self-report data raises the potential for
common-method bias. Finally, we note that we measured
research productivity based on the quantity of publications,
conferences, and book chapters. Although research productivity in terms of publications is certainly a key outcome in
the academic world, given variation in the quality of journals and conferences, the use of more qualitative measures
in future research might reveal additional information.
In spite of these limitations, our research nevertheless
contributes valuable initial insights into how working environment may influence the research performance of management doctoral students, and documents that faculty support
enhances research productivity in this context. In the past,
creativity scholars have been less interested in academic organizations than business organizations. However, academic
organizations are valuable to study due to their inherently
creative nature. We hope our research stimulates further inquiry into the dynamics of creative working environments in
business schools and other university environments.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:28 11 January 2016
106
K. KIM AND S. J. KARAU
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996).
Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
Andrews, F. M., & Farris, G. F. (1972). Time pressure and performance of
scientists and engineers: A five year panel study. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 8, 185–200.
Barron, F. B., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and
personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.
Brewer, P. D., & Brewer, V. L. (1990). Promoting research productivity
in college of business. Journal of Education for Business, 45, 875–
883.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, P., Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R. (1975).
Job demands and worker health. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2000). The
Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education (2000 edition). Stanford, CA: Author.> Retrieved September 1, 2006, from
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal,
Academy of Management Journal, 555–590.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the
control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,
1024–1037.
Delbecq, A. L., & Mills, P. K. (1985). Managerial practices that enhance
innovation. Organizational Dynamics, 14, 24–34.
Farr, J. L., & Ford, C. M. (1990). Individual innovation. In M. A. West & J.
L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 63–80). Chichester,
England: Wiley.
Ford, C. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social
domains. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1112–1142.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check
list. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398–1405.
Hamel, K., & Bracken, D. (1986). Factor structure of the job stress questionnaire (JSQ) in three occupational groups. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 46, 777–786.
Kasperson, K. J. (1978). Scientific creativity: A relationship with information channels. Psychological Reports, 42, 691–694.
Kimberley, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The
influence of individual, organizational and contextual factors on hospital
adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of
Management Journal, 24, 689–713.
King, J. G., & Henderson, J. R. (1991). Faculty research from the perspective of accounting academicians. Journal of Education for Business, 66,
203–207.
Koestner, R., Walker, M., & Fichman, L. (1999). Childhood parenting experiences and adult creativity. Journal of Research in Personality, 33,
92–107.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There is no place like
home? The work and non-work creativity support to employees’ creative
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 757–767.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal
and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39,
607–634.
Payne, R. (1990). The effectiveness of research teams: A review. In M. A.
West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 101–122).
Chichester, England: Wiley.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & Mackenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational
citizenship behavior and the quality and quantity of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2, 262–270.
Ryan, E. B., & Miller, K. I. (1994). Social support home/work stress and
burnout: Who can help? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30,
357–373.
Scott. S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior:
A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 580–607.
Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology,
76, 179–185.
Weidman, C. J., & Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to
academic norms. Research in Higher Education, 44, 641–657.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation and creativity at work. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of
organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity:
Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal,
44, 682–696.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Working Environment and the Research
Productivity of Doctoral Students in Management
Kiwan Kim & Steven J. Karau
To cite this article: Kiwan Kim & Steven J. Karau (2009) Working Environment and the Research
Productivity of Doctoral Students in Management, Journal of Education for Business, 85:2,
101-106, DOI: 10.1080/08832320903258535
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320903258535
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 73
View related articles
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:28
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 85: 101–106, 2010
C Heldref Publications
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323
DOI: 10.1080/08832320903258535
Working Environment and the Research Productivity
of Doctoral Students in Management
Kiwan Kim and Steven J. Karau
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:28 11 January 2016
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, USA
The authors examined the influence of creative personality and creative working environment
on the research productivity of doctoral students in business. Students in management doctoral
programs (N = 200) participated in an online survey. The results show that faculty support
was positively associated with research productivity. Among demographic predictors, doctoral
candidacy and years in one’s present program were also positively associated with research
productivity. The emergence of faculty support as the only significant environmental predictor
of research productivity highlights the unique importance of faculty support, encouragement,
and mentoring in developing the research potential of doctoral management students.
Keywords: Creative personality, Creative working environment, Doctoral students, Faculty
support, Research productivity
A central concern in doctoral education is preparing students
for future careers that require strong research skills. Thus, it
is important to identify factors that might support research
capability and productivity. Identifying such factors would
allow faculty and administrators to focus energy and attention on those specific aspects of the graduate school environment that are most likely to yield improvements in research
productivity. Unfortunately, little research has examined either work environment or individual difference influences on
the research productivity of doctoral students. Most creativity scholars have focused on business organizations, paying
little attention to the implications of creative working environment for academic organizations and doctoral programs.
Yet, in order to carry out research successfully, doctoral students are likely to need access to key resources and support from faculty, peers, and family. In the present study, we
sought to address these gaps in the literature by examining
the influence of creative working environment and creative
personality on the research productivity of doctoral students.
Thus, our research makes a distinctive contribution by applying personality and situational variables that have been
previously shown to affect creative performance in business
contexts to the new context of academic business research us-
Correspondence should be addressed to Steven J. Karau, Department of
Management, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA. E-mail:
skarau@cba.siu.edu
ing a sample of doctoral management students in the United
States.
In agreement with many prior discussions (Amabile,
Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Ford, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), we define creativity as the
production of useful and novel products or ideas. In the
broader organizational context, considerable prior research
suggests that employee creativity contributes to organizational performance. Organizational scholars have identified
a variety of contextual factors that may enhance employee
creativity, including support from supervisors (Deci & Ryan,
1985, 1987) and colleagues (Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002;
Zhou & George, 2001), adequate resources (Scott & Bruce,
1994), autonomy (Amabile et al.), and appropriate levels
of time pressure (Amabile, 1988). In the context of doctoral business programs, these factors logically extend to
support from faculty and fellow students, adequate research
and other resources, control over one’s own work, and appropriate temporal expectations. In contrast, factors such as
conservatism, role conflict, and internal strife may inhibit
employees from translating creativity into increased performance (Kimberley & Evanisko, 1981). Several influential
perspectives (e.g., Amabile et al.; West & Farr, 1990; Woodman et al) have overlapped in the identification of individual
differences, work-related resources, and social influences as
important influences on individual creative capacity. Consistent with those broader prior viewpoints on business organizations, we focused our study on creative personality, faculty
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:28 11 January 2016
102
K. KIM AND S. J. KARAU
support, family support, colleague support, research resources, and workload pressures.
Personality and environmental factors are likely to affect creativity. Regarding personality, many researchers have
proposed that creativity is closely related to cognitive ability or style (Ford, 1996), personality (Amabile; Barron &
Harrington, 1981), and knowledge (Ford). In particular, a
creative person may have characteristics such as originality, flexibility, elaboration, intuition, divergent thinking, curiosity, self-confidence, and energy (Amabile; Barron &
Harrington; Ford). Oldham and Cummings (1996) characterized highly creative people as capable, clever, intelligent, inventive, and reflective, and characterized less creative people
as cautious, conservative, and mannerly. These viewpoints
suggest that people with certain characteristics perform well
in creative contexts. Because successful research requires
doctoral students to generate ideas, develop sound research
designs, and analyze complex data, we predicted that creative
personality would be positively associated with the research
productivity of doctoral students.
Hypothesis 1(H 1 ): The individual creative personality of doctoral students is positively associated with research productivity.
Regarding environmental factors, prior creativity research
on business organizations has suggested that productivity
on work that requires creativity can be enhanced by support from the organization or supervisor (Amabile et al.;
Scott & Bruce, 1994), support from family and friends
(Madjar et al., 2002), the availability of sufficient resources
(Amabile et al.; Scott & Bruce), appropriate workload
pressures (Amabile), and freedom or autonomy (Amabile
et al.; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Scott & Bruce). A number of studies have demonstrated that supervisory style influences employee creativity at work (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985,
1987; Shalley, 1991). Supportive supervisors show concern
for employees’ feelings and needs, encourage the expression
of opinions, promote interest in work activities, and provide
positive feedback (Deci & Ryan, 1985). In doctoral education, the complexities involved with research projects may
enhance the importance of mentoring and supervision in allowing students to understand how to translate their creative
ideas into feasible research projects and papers. Consistent
with this logic, Weidman and Stein (2003) suggested that
social interactions between students and faculty stimulate a
student’s research productivity by creating a supportive environment. With this evidence in mind, we reasoned that
faculty support would enhance doctoral students’ research
productivity.
H 2 : Support from faculty is positively associated with research productivity.
Research on stress and burnout has shown that support
from family members and friends outside of the workplace
can help people cope with negative aspects of the workplace
(e.g., Ryan & Miller, 1994) and can also enhance positive outcomes such as creative performance (e.g., Koestner, Walker,
& Fichman, 1999; Madjar et al., 2002). We expected these
more general findings to also apply to the academic research
context, such that psychological and social support from family and friends would have a positive influence on research
productivity.
H 3 : Support from family and friends is positively associated
with research productivity.
A variety of studies suggest that collaboration among diverse associates has a positive association with creative performance. For example, Kasperson (1978) suggested that scientists that interact across disciplines make a more innovative
contribution. Payne (1990) found that internal and external
group communication had a positive association with team
performance. Scott and Bruce (1994) found that the cohesiveness of a work group influenced members’ willingness
to voice their ideas and opinions. Consistent with this prior
work, we reasoned that doctoral students who get support
from colleagues would attain higher levels of research productivity.
H 4 : Support from colleagues is positively associated with
research productivity.
Many scholars have claimed that the provision of adequate resources is closely related to organizational performance (Damanpour, 1991; Delbecq & Mills, 1985). Besides
the obvious practical limitations of extreme resource restrictions, individuals’ views about the sufficiency of resources
can also influence their perceptions of the intrinsic value of
projects (Farr & Ford, 1990; Payne, 1990). In a similar vein,
educational researchers have argued that resource availability can have an impact on academic performance. A study
of accounting professors found that the availability of resources such as research assistants, information technology,
and editorial help contributed to research productivity (King
and Henderson, 1991). Brewer and Brewer (1990) found that
research productivity was related to perceptions of the availability of research resources such as research assistants, secretarial help, computers, and libraries. These general findings
are also likely applicable to the context of doctoral students in
management. Therefore, we predicted that research resources
would be positively related with research productivity.
H 5 : Research resources are positively associated with research productivity.
Although excessive workload pressures might undermine
creativity, prior research has shown that some degree of
pressure can actually promote creativity when individuals perceive the pressure as appropriate to the inherent
challenges of the work (Amabile). Similarly, time pressure has been found to promote creativity in research and
RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY OF DOCTORAL STUDENTS
development scientists, except when that pressure reached an
undesirably high level (Andrews & Farris, 1972). Regarding
doctoral students, workload pressures are likely to come
from coursework, research projects, and assistantship work.
Given that these pressures would likely be viewed as reasonable and necessary to the academic enterprise, we predicted
that workload pressures would be positively associated with
research productivity among doctoral students.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:28 11 January 2016
H 6 : Workload pressures are positively associated with research productivity.
In summary, we hypothesized that creative personality
and five work environment factors—support from faculty,
support from family and friends, support from colleagues,
research resources, and workload pressures—would all have
a positive influence on doctoral students’ research productivity. We tested these hypotheses using an internet survey
of doctoral management students. We assessed all predictor
variables using established, previously validated measures,
and assessed research productivity based on total scholarly
output during a 5-year period.
METHOD
Setting, Participants, and Procedure
We recruited doctoral students in management and
management-related areas from business schools in the
United States. Using the Carnegie Classification (Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2000) and
business school accreditation Web sites, we identified 103
business schools that offered doctoral degrees in management
and management-related areas. We included departments labeled (by the business school) as management departments
or departments of traditional management areas (e.g., organizational behavior, organization theory, strategy, human
resources, international business, entrepreneurship, production and operations, decision science, management science,
supply-chain management, information technology, management information systems). We also included doctoral students in departments housed in business schools and labeled
as areas related to management (e.g., industrial and organizational psychology, industrial and labor relations, small
business, and project management).
Using university, college, and department Web sites for
these programs, we identified a total of 943 e-mail addresses
of doctoral students. We contacted prospective participants
in two waves (separated by 6 weeks) by e-mail to invite them
to participate in our online survey. The first wave produced
186 responses (165 useable), and the second wave produced
an additional 45 responses (35 useable). Thus, the final sample size constituted of 200 participants (54.5% men, 45.5%
women), representing a response rate of 21.2%. Within this
final sample, 63% of respondents were married (with a M
103
of 0.72 children, SD = 1.03) and 48% were doctoral candidates (i.e., had attained ABD status). The mean time at each
individual’s present program was 2.95 years (SD = 1.57).
Measures
For our predictor variables, we selected previously validated
instruments with good-to-excellent internal consistency and
good apparent face validity. Where possible, we also selected
fairly brief scales to keep the length of our survey reasonable
and encourage participation. For research productivity, we
used a self-report measure of total scholarly manuscripts
accepted for publication or presentation during a five-year
period.
Creative Personality
We measured creative personality using the 30-item Creative Personality Score index (CPS; Gough, 1979). This index has been used frequently to assess creative personality
(Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Gough demonstrated convergence between the CPS and expert ratings of the creativity
levels of individuals in a variety of creative contexts. Respondents are given 30 adjectives and asked to check all
that describe themselves well. A score of “+1” is assigned to
adjectives typical of creative people, and a score of “–1” is assigned to adjectives atypical of creative people, with possible
total scores ranging from –12 to 18. Oldham and Cummings
reported a reliability of.70 for the CPS. The reliability in the
present study was .67.
Support from Faculty
We adopted 7 items from Weidman and Stein (2003;
α = .84, items assessed using 7-point scales). Items assessed
the extent to which faculty were accessible, aware of student
concerns, engaging students in scholarly activities, and were
available to discuss academic and other matters (α = .83 in
the present sample).
Support from Colleagues
We used the 7-item scale from Podsakoff, Ahearne, and
Mackenzie (1997; α = .95). Items asked respondents how
much their colleagues were helpful in work, sharing their expertise, and encouraging one another (α = .92 in the present
sample).
Support from Family and Friends
We measured support from family and friends with the
4-item scale developed by Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison,
and Pinneau (1975; α = .86). Items addressed the degree to
which family and friends were willing to support individuals
and help them deal with work responsibilities (α = .80 in the
present sample).
104
K. KIM AND S. J. KARAU
Research Resources
on research productivity (H 1 ), over and above demographic
variables. This model indicates that creative personality did
not explain significant variability in research productivity
and that the addition of CPS made no incremental contribution to R2. Hence, Hypothesis 1 was not supported. Model
3 tested the influence of faculty support (H 2 ), family and
friend support (H 3 ), support from colleagues (H 4 ), research
resources (H 5 ), and workload pressures (H 6 ) on research
productivity, controlling for creative personality and demographic variables. The results show that there was only one
significant relationship between creative-environment variables and research productivity: Namely, faculty support had
a significant, positive relationship with research productivity. Hence, H 2 was supported but H 3–6 were not supported.
The addition of creative-environment variables produced a
significant increase in R2, indicating that environmental factors added significant explanatory power over demographic
predictors and personality and explained an additional 5% of
the variance in research productivity.
We employed a 6-item scale from Scott and Bruce (1994;
α = .77). Items assessed the degree to which adequate resources, assistance, funding, and personnel were available to
support creativity and innovation. We made slight wording
changes in some items in order to make them appropriate to
an academic organization (α = .82 in the present sample).
Workload Pressures
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:28 11 January 2016
We measured workload pressures using the 5-item scale
from Hamel and Bracken (1986; α = .81). Items asked how
frequently the job required a lot of work to be done in a
limited amount of time (α = . 86 in the present sample).
Research Productivity
Using separate questions, we asked respondents to report
how many journal articles, conference proceedings or presentations, books, and chapters in edited books they had published or presented during the previous 6 years (2002–2006).
Initial analyses showed the same general pattern of results
whether we used individual measures or indices that combined across measures. Thus, we present our results in terms
of a total research productivity index that adds journal articles, conference papers, books, and book chapters.
DISCUSSION
Our results show that support from faculty has a significant
impact on the research productivity of management doctoral
students. This result is consistent with previous findings from
business organizations (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1987) as
well as with prior educational research (Weidman & Stein,
2003). The present results extend this prior work to doctoral
management education and suggest that faculty support is
important to the development of research skills and resulting
research productivity. Given the absence of other significant
predictors of research productivity, each of which had been
shown to be important in prior organizational studies, faculty support may take on special importance. With the many
complexities, subtleties, and judgment calls that can arise in
research projects, our results suggest that a primary avenue
RESULTS
We tested our hypotheses using multiple regression analyses.
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations.
Table 2 presents our key analyses. Model 1 shows that demographic variables explained 24% of the total variance in research productivity. Among significant demographic predictors, doctoral candidacy and years at the individual’s present
program were both positively associated with research productivity. Model 2 tested the effect of creative personality
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variable
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
1. Gender
2. Marital status
3. Number or children
4. Years in program
5. Status
6. Creativity (CPS)
7. Faculty support
8. Family support
9. Colleague support
10. Research resources
11. Workload pressures
0.52
0.65
0.72
2.95
0.56
6.04
3.75
4.25
3.38
5.06
5.03
0.55
0.50
1.03
1.57
0.53
3.54
0.74
0.77
0.78
1.06
1.17
—
–.03
–.13
.01
–.12
–.08
.00
.06
–.04
.03
.05
—
.42
.03
.06
−.02
.02
.08
–.02
.04
.08
—
.04
.08
–.11
.00
.10
.04
–.00
.00
—
.61∗∗
.06
–.16∗
.15∗
–.03
.06
–.03
—
.14∗
–.01
.08
.04
.12
.02
6
7
8
9
10
11
—
.34∗∗
.48∗∗
.62∗∗
.19∗∗
—
.40∗∗
.32∗∗
.16∗
—
.39∗∗
.12
—
.03
—
—
.05
–.01
.03
.02
.09
Note. Variables were coded as the following: Male = 0, Female = 1; Not married = 0, Married = 1; Non-ABD = 0, ABD = 1.
< .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
∗p
RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY OF DOCTORAL STUDENTS
TABLE 2
Research Productivity as a Function of
Demographics, CPS, and Work Environment
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:28 11 January 2016
Variable
Demographic (β)
Genderb
Marital statusc
Number of children
Degree candidacyd
Years at current program
CPS (β)
Work environment(β)
Faculty support
Family support
Research resources
Workload pressures
Colleague support
R2
Adjusted R2
F
df
Incremental R2
Incremental F
df
Model 1
(control
model)
Model 2
(controls +
CPS)
Model 3
(full model)
.06
–.06
–.07
.24∗∗
.29∗∗
.05
–.05
–.07
.25∗∗
.29∗∗
–.04
.06
–.05
–.06
.22∗
.34∗∗∗
–.05
.24
.21
8.96∗∗∗
(6, 172)
.00
.37
(1, 172)
.21∗
–.10
.08
–.07
–.06
.29
.25
6.29∗∗∗
(11, 167)
.05
2.59∗
(5, 167)
.24
.21
10.72∗∗∗
(5, 173)
Note. Variables were coded as the following: Male = 0, Female = 1;
Not married = 0, Married = 1; Non-ABD = 0, ABD = 1. CPS = Creative
Personality Score index (H. G. Gough, 1979).
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
for enhancing doctoral students’ research skills is the active
support, involvement, and mentoring of faculty members.
The hypotheses that did not receive support are also interesting. Because past studies have shown creative personality
to be a significant predictor of creative performance in business organizations, it is intriguing that those results did not
extend to research productivity in the present study. With regard to family support, colleague support, research resources,
and workload pressures, none of these variables showed a
significant relationship with research productivity within the
present sample. One plausible general interpretation for all of
these null results concerns range restriction issues. Doctoralgranting research-oriented universities are likely to provide
at least adequate research resources to doctoral students and
often select those students from large applicant pools based
partially on their creativity, research capabilities, and prior
research accomplishments. Thus, our participants may share
many similarities in that they have a higher creative personality (M = 6.09, SD = 3.54) than employees in manufacturing
companies studied in prior work (M = 0.15 in Madjar et al.,
2002; M = 4.26 in Oldham & Cummings, 1996). It would
be a promising research area to examine these same predictors in a wider variety of academic contexts and university
environments.
With regard to demographic variables, the status of
doctoral students was a significant predictor of research
105
productivity, meaning that students who had reached degree
candidacy had higher research productivity than non-ABD
students. Similarly, the year in the individual’s present program was also a significant predictor, indicating that tenure
within a doctoral program is associated with research productivity. These results are likely attributable to more experienced students having more research experience and contact
with faculty as well as having accumulated more time to conduct research projects that have progressed through the peer
review process.
Although our research takes an important first step of examining creative personality and creative work-environment
influences on research productivity among business doctoral
students, it also had some limitations that might be addressed
by future researchers. First, our response rate of 21.2% raises
the possibility that the sample might not be representative of
all management doctoral students. Similarly, our focus on
management students (chosen to allow a common basis of
research comparison) did not allow us to draw broader conclusions about the full scope of research productivity in all
business majors or to wider disciplinary contexts. Second,
although environmental factors explained significant incremental variability in research productivity, the addition to
R2 was small (5%). Overall, all predictors explained 29%
of variance, suggesting that most of the variance in research
productivity is explained by other factors not examined in
the present research. Additional environment variables implicated in productivity and stress literature, such as role conflict
and role ambiguity, could be studied by future researchers.
Third, our use of self-report data raises the potential for
common-method bias. Finally, we note that we measured
research productivity based on the quantity of publications,
conferences, and book chapters. Although research productivity in terms of publications is certainly a key outcome in
the academic world, given variation in the quality of journals and conferences, the use of more qualitative measures
in future research might reveal additional information.
In spite of these limitations, our research nevertheless
contributes valuable initial insights into how working environment may influence the research performance of management doctoral students, and documents that faculty support
enhances research productivity in this context. In the past,
creativity scholars have been less interested in academic organizations than business organizations. However, academic
organizations are valuable to study due to their inherently
creative nature. We hope our research stimulates further inquiry into the dynamics of creative working environments in
business schools and other university environments.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:28 11 January 2016
106
K. KIM AND S. J. KARAU
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996).
Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
Andrews, F. M., & Farris, G. F. (1972). Time pressure and performance of
scientists and engineers: A five year panel study. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 8, 185–200.
Barron, F. B., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and
personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.
Brewer, P. D., & Brewer, V. L. (1990). Promoting research productivity
in college of business. Journal of Education for Business, 45, 875–
883.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, P., Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R. (1975).
Job demands and worker health. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2000). The
Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education (2000 edition). Stanford, CA: Author.> Retrieved September 1, 2006, from
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal,
Academy of Management Journal, 555–590.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the
control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,
1024–1037.
Delbecq, A. L., & Mills, P. K. (1985). Managerial practices that enhance
innovation. Organizational Dynamics, 14, 24–34.
Farr, J. L., & Ford, C. M. (1990). Individual innovation. In M. A. West & J.
L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 63–80). Chichester,
England: Wiley.
Ford, C. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social
domains. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1112–1142.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check
list. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398–1405.
Hamel, K., & Bracken, D. (1986). Factor structure of the job stress questionnaire (JSQ) in three occupational groups. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 46, 777–786.
Kasperson, K. J. (1978). Scientific creativity: A relationship with information channels. Psychological Reports, 42, 691–694.
Kimberley, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The
influence of individual, organizational and contextual factors on hospital
adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of
Management Journal, 24, 689–713.
King, J. G., & Henderson, J. R. (1991). Faculty research from the perspective of accounting academicians. Journal of Education for Business, 66,
203–207.
Koestner, R., Walker, M., & Fichman, L. (1999). Childhood parenting experiences and adult creativity. Journal of Research in Personality, 33,
92–107.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There is no place like
home? The work and non-work creativity support to employees’ creative
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 757–767.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal
and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39,
607–634.
Payne, R. (1990). The effectiveness of research teams: A review. In M. A.
West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 101–122).
Chichester, England: Wiley.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & Mackenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational
citizenship behavior and the quality and quantity of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2, 262–270.
Ryan, E. B., & Miller, K. I. (1994). Social support home/work stress and
burnout: Who can help? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30,
357–373.
Scott. S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior:
A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 580–607.
Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology,
76, 179–185.
Weidman, C. J., & Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to
academic norms. Research in Higher Education, 44, 641–657.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation and creativity at work. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of
organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity:
Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal,
44, 682–696.