When and why are proactive employees more creative? Investigations of relational and motivational mechanisms and contextual contingencies in the east and west
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite theory and empirical work linking employee proactive personality to individual‐level creativity, less is known about why and under what circumstances this relationship occurs. Drawing inspiration from the dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations, we report the results of two complementary, multisource field studies conceptualizing and testing interactional justice and intrinsic motivation as mediators of this relationship in two cultural contexts (i.e., China and Canada). We also investigated two potential moderators of these mediated effects: employees’ personal power distance values (in Study 1) and supervisor proactive personality (in Study 2). Although the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation was robust across the two studies, highlighting the cross‐cultural generalizability of this pathway, supplemental analyses in Study 1 indicate that this mechanism was driven by the self‐determination (vs. meaning, competence, or impact) facet of intrinsic task motivation in particular. In contrast, the mediating effect of interactional justice was contingent on both supervisor proactive personality and employee power distance, though at different stages of the process (i.e., Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 moderation, respectively). Taken together, these findings highlight the importance of relational, in addition to motivational pathways, in explaining the influence of proactive personality on creativity, but also suggest that the relational mechanism may be more sensitive to contextual influences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".