Abstract:

Since Gilson and Madjar (2011) first introduced the distinction between radical and incremental creativity, echoing the concepts of radical and incremental innovation in organizational innovation research, related theoretical and empirical studies have gradually emerged. This study reviews 79 relevant articles published between 2011 and 2024, examining the theoretical foundations and empirical evidence supporting the differentiation of these two types of creativity. Our findings show that while most studies theoretically distinguish between radical and incremental creativity, only half of the studies have constructed research questions and theoretical models based on their differences. Empirically, although some studies present evidence of discriminant validity in measurement instruments, most have yet to directly test the significance of the differential impacts of radical and incremental creativity. Notably, over 40% of the studies fail to theoretically distinguish or provide empirical support for the two constructs.

Theoretically, the distinction between radical and incremental creativity is rooted in the literature on organizational innovation and learning (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Dewar & Dutton, 1986), with radical creativity referring to ideas that fundamentally differ from existing practices or products, and incremental creativity representing minor improvements within existing frameworks. This classification is grounded in the creativity component theory (Amabile et al., 1996), which posits that creativity comprises domain-relevant skills, creative-thinking skills, and task motivation, each of which may differentially influence radical and incremental creativity. For instance, internal motivation is more strongly associated with radical creativity, while external motivation tends to enhance incremental creativity.

Empirically, the relationship between radical and incremental creativity remains inconclusive. Within the empirical studies related to radical and incremental creativity in the current review, most studies report a positive correlation between the two, with varying degrees of strength, despite some studies also find negative correlations or no significant relationship. A meta-analysis conducted in this study reveals a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.47) between radical and incremental creativity, suggesting that these constructs are distinct yet related. However, the high correlation may be partly attributed to common method biases in data collection, highlighting the need for more rigorous empirical designs. Regarding discriminant validity, confirmatory factor analyses in the reviewed studies consistently demonstrate that measurement models with separate constructs for radical and incremental creativity fit the data better than those with a single combined construct, providing strong evidence for their distinction. Further, comparisons of average variance extracted (AVE) values and correlation coefficients also support the discriminant validity of the two constructs. Despite these advancements, the empirical evidence for the differentiated impacts of radical and incremental creativity remains limited. Only a minority of studies have directly tested the significance of differences in the regression coefficients of third variables on radical and incremental creativity. These studies reveal that various antecedents, moderators, and consequences exhibit differential effects on the two types of creativity, underscoring the importance of distinguishing them in research.

To advance the field, we propose four aspects for scholars to consider in their future work related with radical and incremental creativity: (1) strengthen the theoretical foundations for distinguishing radical and incremental creativity; (2) adopt more rigorous empirical designs to mitigate common method biases; (3) improve methodology rigor, such as collecting data at different time points or using objective measures; (4) directly test the significance of differences in the impacts of third variables on radical and incremental creativity. In addition, we urge more scholarly attention on exploring the antecedents, moderators, and consequences of the two types of creativity more thoroughly. Specifically, we highlight the following questions for future inquiries: (1) how does factors, such as task complexity, fairness, and culture, influence radical and incremental creativity? (2) how do these two types of creativities impact individuals and organizations differentially? (3) how do team structures, leadership, and culture facilitate or hinder these creativities at a team level? By addressing these gaps, future research can offer a more nuanced understanding of the nature and implications of radical and incremental creativity.

Key words: radical creativity, incremental creativity, discriminant validity