Creativity During Threat to Organizational Survival: The Influence of Employee Creativity on Downsizing Survival Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although research consistently shows that employee creativity contributes to positive outcomes for teams and organizations, we have limited insight into how employee creativity shapes the outcomes of those employees who demonstrate such creativity, particularly in the context of environmental uncertainties. Drawing from event system theory and threat rigidity theory, we argue that under a threat to organizational survival, incremental creativity has a positive, and radical creativity has a negative, indirect effect on downsizing survival selection via manager evaluations of employee job performance. Study 1 uses a unique three-wave, three-source field study ( n 1 = 186) to provide support for our hypotheses. Studies 2 and 3 use experimental data ( n 2 = 410, n 3 = 565) involving different scenarios of threats to organizational survival (i.e., organization’s innovation failure, competitor’s successful innovation) that provide further support for the hypothesized effects of radical creativity on manager evaluations of employee job performance. Post-hoc analyses reveal novel insights into how managers’ creativity preferences can influence their evaluation of the job performance of employees who demonstrate incremental creativity during threatening events.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".