Abstract: Employee creativity has attracted academic attention for a long time, yet the treatment of creativity as a uni-dimensional construct raises concerns in related theoretical and practical developments. In 2011, Gilson and Madjar proposed for the first time to divide creativity into radical and incremental creativity. Subsequently, a series of theoretical and empirical studies emerged. By reviewing 79 articles over the last thirteen years, this paper comprehensively and thoroughly examines the theoretical basis and empirical evidence to distinguish these two types of creativity. The results show that, while some studies have delineated the theoretical differences between radical and incremental creativity, only half of the reviewed studies have utilized these differences as the basis for constructing research questions and theoretical models. In terms of empirical examination, some studies have provided evidence of discriminant validity for measurement tools, but the majority have not directly examined the significance of the differential impacts of radical and incremental creativity. Moreover, over forty percent of the reviewed studies either failed to differentiate theoretically or provide empirical evidence of the distinctiveness of these two types of creativity. In conclusion, future studies should aim for coherence across theoretical basis, research question formulation, model construction, and empirical testing in uncovering the fundamental differences and unique impacts of these two forms of creativity. Finally, a set of recommendations is proposed to facilitate better differentiation between radical and incremental creativity, along with suggested research questions for further exploration.

Key words: radical creativity, incremental creativity, discriminant validity