有志者, 事竟成：内在动机倾向、创意质量与创意实施

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00801

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本研究基于自我决定理论和耶鲁态度改变理论, 以创意提出者的内在动机倾向为起点, 探索其对创意质量的影响, 创意质量和创意提出者所获奖励进一步影响了创意实施, 纵向追踪创意从提出到实施的创新历程。针对251份多时点、多来源配对数据的分析结果表明：(1)创意提出者的内在动机倾向积极预测创意质量; (2)创意质量对创意实施有显著的正向影响; (3)创意提出者所获奖励积极预测创意实施; (4)创意质量和创意提出者所获奖励交互影响创意实施：对于低奖励的创意提出者而言, 创意质量对创意实施的正向影响更加强烈。以上研究发现弥合了创造力领域和创意实施领域的理论分野, 对企业创新管理实践有较强的启发。

关键词: 内在动机倾向, 创意质量, 创意实施, 奖励

Abstract:

The innovation process can be conceptualized as encompassing two stages: idea generation and idea implementation. However, to date, more early research has been focused on the idea generation stage, and these two subfields still remain stubbornly disconnected from one another. To integrate these two disparate subfields and advance our comprehensive understanding of the innovation process, the current study relied on self-determination theory and Yale attitude change approach to examine the effect of intrinsic motivational orientation of idea generators on idea quality, and further tested the effect of idea quality, rewards of the idea generators, and their interaction on idea implementation.

To test the hypotheses in the proposed model, we collected data from 251 idea generators, 7 idea evaluators and the manager of an innovative proposal project at 3 different time points in a large financial company. In the first wave, 440 ideas proposed by 440 idea generators were recorded. In the second wave, all of the idea generators were invited to complete a questionnaire, including demographic information and intrinsic motivational orientation, and the number of valid questionnaires was 251; moreover, 7 in-house experts assessed the idea generators and the quality of each idea. Approximately six months later, the manager of this project reported the implementation degree of all of the ideas. Our hypotheses were examined using SPSS 22.0.

By analyzing the multi-time and multi-source data, it was found in this study that: (1) intrinsic motivational orientation of the idea generators has a significantly positive effect on idea quality; (2) idea quality further facilitates idea implementation; (3) rewards of the idea generators positively influence idea implementation; and (4) idea quality and rewards of the idea generators interact to predict idea implementation.

The findings presented here contribute to innovation literature in the following ways. First, this study tracks the innovation process from idea generation to idea implementation, bridging the theoretical divide between creativity research and idea implementation research. Second, this study clarifies the positive effect of intrinsic motivational orientation on idea quality, which is a beneficial supplement to, and promotion of the existing research on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and creativity. Third, Yale attitude change theory is introduced into idea implementation research, which not only expands the application scope of this theory, but also enriches theoretical perspectives of idea implementation research.

Key words: intrinsic motivational orientation, idea quality, idea implementation, rewards

中图分类号:

B849: C91

董念念, 王雪莉. (2020). 有志者, 事竟成：内在动机倾向、创意质量与创意实施. 心理学报, 52(6), 801-810.

DONG Niannian, WANG Xueli. (2020). Where there's a will, there's a way: Intrinsic motivational orientation, idea quality, and idea implementation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(6), 801-810.

图/表 4

参考文献 49

[1]	Aiken, L. S, & West, S. G . (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
[2]	Agarwal, P., & Farndale, E . (2017). High-performance work systems and creativity implementation: The role of psychological capital and psychological safety. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(3), 440-458.
[3]	Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M . (1994). The work preference inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950-967.
[4]	Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J . (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333.
[5]	Baer, M . (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1102-1119.
[6]	Bai, X. W., Qi, S. T., Ming, X. D., Zhou, Y. Y., & Huang, M. Q . (2019). Pearls are everywhere but not the eyes: The mechanism and boundary conditions of the influences of decision maker's mental models on idea recognition. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(4), 571-586.
	[ 白新文, 齐舒婷, 明晓东, 周意勇, 黄明权 . (2019). 骏马易见, 伯乐难寻: 决策者心智模式影响创意识别的机制及边界条件. 心理科学进展, 27(4), 571-586.]
[7]	Blair, C. S., & Mumford, M. D . (2007). Errors in idea evaluation: Preference for the unoriginal? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(3), 197-222.
[8]	Blazevic, V., & Lievens, A . (2008). Managing innovation through customer coproduced knowledge in electronic services: An exploratory study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 138-151. doi: 10.1007/s11747-007-0064-y URL
[9]	Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T . (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980-1008. doi: 10.1037/a0035661 URL
[10]	Criscuolo, P., Dahlander, L., Grohsjean, T., & Salter, A . (2017). Evaluating novelty: The role of panels in the selection of R&D projects. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 433-460. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0861 URL
[11]	Da Silva, N., & Oldham, G. R . (2012). Adopting employees' ideas: Moderators of the idea generation-idea implementation link. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2-3), 134-145. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.677257 URL
[12]	Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M . (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699-709. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013 URL
[13]	Dean, D. L., Hender, J., Rodgers, T., & Santanen, E . (2006). Identifying good ideas: Constructs and scales for idea evaluation. Journal of Association for Information Systems, 7(10), 646-699.
[14]	Dibrell, C., Davis, P. S., & Craig, J . (2008). Fueling innovation through information technology in SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(2), 203-218.
[15]	Eliëns, R., Eling, K., Gelper, S., & Langerak, F . (2018). Rational versus intuitive gatekeeping: Escalation of commitment in the front end of NPD. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(6), 890-907.
[16]	Evans, J. S. B. T . (2008). Dual‐processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278.
[17]	Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L . (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
[18]	George, J. M . (2007). Creativity in organizations. In J. P. Walsh & A. P. Brief (Eds). Academy of Management Annals, (Vol. 1, pp. 439-477). New York: Erlbaum.
[19]	Gong, Y., Zhou, J., & Chang, S . (2013). Core knowledge employee creativity and firm performance: The moderating role of riskiness orientation, firm size, and realized absorptive capacity. Personnel Psychology, 66(2), 443-482.
[20]	Grant, A. M . (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48-58.
[21]	Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W . (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 73-96.
[22]	Hall, H., & Graham, D . (2004). Creation and recreation: Motivating collaboration to generate knowledge capital in online communities. International Journal of Information Management, 24(3), 235-246.
[23]	Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H . (1953) Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
[24]	Jalonen, H . (2012). The uncertainty of innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Research, 4(1), 1-47.
[25]	Johnson, D. E., Erez, A., Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J . (2002). Liking and attributions of motives as mediators of the relationships between individuals' reputations, helpful behaviors and raters' reward decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 808-815.
[26]	Kruft, T., Tilsner, C., Schindler, A., & Kock, A . (2019). Persuasion in corporate idea contests: The moderating role of content scarcity on decision making. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(5), 560-585.
[27]	Lu, S., Bartol, K. M., Venkataramani, V., Zheng, X., & Liu, X . (2019). Pitching novel ideas to the boss: The interactive effects of employees' idea enactment and influence tactics on creativity assessment and implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 579-606.
[28]	Markham, S. K., & Lee, H . (2013). Product development and management association's 2012 comparative performance assessment study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(3), 408-429.
[29]	Mueller, J., Melwani, S., Loewenstein, J., & Deal, J. J . (2018). Reframing the decision-makers' dilemma: Towards a social context model of creative idea recognition. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 94-110.
[30]	Murphy, P. K., Long, J. F., Holleran, T. A., & Esterly, E . (2003). Persuasion online or on paper: A new take on an old issue. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 511-532.
[31]	Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, P. V . (2017). From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 53-79.
[32]	Piezunka, H., & Dahlander, L . (2019). Idea rejected, tie formed: Organizations' feedback on crowdsourced ideas. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 503-530.
[33]	Sarooghi, H., Libaers, D., & Burkemper, A . (2015). Examining the relationship between creativity and innovation: A meta-analysis of organizational, cultural, and environmental factors. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 714-731.
[34]	Schuhmacher, M. C., & Kuester, S . (2012). Identification of lead user characteristics driving the quality of service innovation ideas. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(4), 427-442.
[35]	Shalley, C. E., & Zhou, J . (2008). Organizational creativity research: A historical overview. In J. Zhou, & C. E. Shalley (Eds). Handbook of organizational creativity(pp. 3-31). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[36]	Shi, L. F., Liao, F., & Ding, D. M . (2012). The personal reputation concern as a psychological uncertainty attenuator: A case study within the relationship between the procedural justice and the cooperation. Management World, (12), 97-114.
	[ 施丽芳, 廖飞, 丁德明 . (2012). 个人声誉关注作为心理不确定的缓解器: 程序公平一合作关系下的实证研究. 管理世界, (12), 97-114.]
[37]	Škerlavaj, M., Černe, M., & Dysvik, A . (2014). I get by with a little help from my supervisor: Creative-idea generation, idea implementation, and perceived supervisor support. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 987-1000.
[38]	Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A . (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39(3), 684-708.
[39]	Wee, E., & Venkataramani, V . (2017, August). How ideas come to life: Effect of role and context on supervisory sponsorship. Paper presented at the meeting of Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.
[40]	West, M. A . (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, 51(3), 355-387.
[41]	Whitson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D . (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322(5898), 115-117.
[42]	Yadav, M. S., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K . (2007). Managing the future: CEO attention and innovation outcomes. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 84-101.
[43]	Yang, Z. H., & Li, D. C . (2018). An investigation of the systemic risk of Chinese banks: An application based on leave-one-out. Economic Research Journal, (8), 36-51.
	[ 杨子晖, 李东承 . (2018). 我国银行系统性金融风险研究——基于“去一法”的应用分析. 经济研究, (8), 36-51.]
[44]	Yao, X., Wang, S., Dang, J., & Wang, L . (2012). The role of individualism-collectivism in the individual creative process. Creativity Research Journal, 24(4), 296-303.
[45]	Zhang, H., Ren J., Y., Liu, C. Y., & Luo, J . (2019). Conformity effect of the evaluation of creative products. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(6), 688-698.
	[ 张红, 任靖远, 刘晨阳, 罗劲 . (2019). 创造性产品评价中的从众效应. 心理学报, 51(6), 688-698.]
[46]	Zhang, Y., Long, L. R., & He, W . (2014). The effect of pay for performance on radical creativity and incremental creativity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(12), 1880-1896. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.01880 URL
	[ 张勇, 龙立荣, 贺伟 . (2014). 绩效薪酬对员工突破性创造力和渐进性创造力的影响. 心理学报, 46(12), 1880-1896.]
[47]	Zhou, J., & George, J. M . (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682-696.
[48]	Zhou, J., Wang, X. M., Bavato, D., Tasselli, S., & Wu, J . (2019). Understanding the receiving side of creativity: A multidisciplinary review and implications for management research. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2570-2595.
[49]	Zinko, R., Ferris, G. R., Blass, F. R., & Laird, M. D . (2007). Toward a theory of reputation in organizations. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed). Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 26, pp. 163-204). Oxford, UK: JAI Press.

时点	创新提案项目开展阶段	研究数据收集情况
时点1	创意提出阶段	研究者向创新提案项目管理者提取创意提出者信息和创意内容。
时点2	创意评估阶段	(1)研究者向7名内部专家提取440条创意质量数据和创意提出者获奖的二手数据。 (2)研究者在客户体验管理部和人力资源管理部的支持下, 对440名创意提出者发放问卷, 收集其人口统计学信息和内在动机倾向数据, 共回收251份有效问卷。
时点3	创意实施阶段	研究者向创新提案项目管理者提取创意实施的二手数据。

时点	创新提案项目开展阶段	研究数据收集情况
时点1	创意提出阶段	研究者向创新提案项目管理者提取创意提出者信息和创意内容。
时点2	创意评估阶段	(1)研究者向7名内部专家提取440条创意质量数据和创意提出者获奖的二手数据。 (2)研究者在客户体验管理部和人力资源管理部的支持下, 对440名创意提出者发放问卷, 收集其人口统计学信息和内在动机倾向数据, 共回收251份有效问卷。
时点3	创意实施阶段	研究者向创新提案项目管理者提取创意实施的二手数据。

变量名	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1.年龄	29.88	3.79
2.性别	0.22	0.41	0.03
3.教育程度	1.79	0.44	0.11	0.03
4.风险管理部	0.11	0.32	0.25^***	0.03	0.02
5.运营中心	0.55	0.50	-0.28^***	-0.28^***	-0.05	-0.39^***
6.资产管理部	0.11	0.31	0.16^**	-0.09	0.05	-0.12	-0.38^***
7.客户关系管理部	0.12	0.33	-0.10	0.17^**	-0.05	-0.13^*	-0.40^***	-0.13^*
8.组织任期	5.83	3.47	0.79^***	-0.12	0.07	0.37^***	-0.14^*	0.25^***	-0.28^***
9.职位任期	3.10	2.00	0.08	-0.31^***	-0.06	-0.08	0.28^***	-0.00	0.18^**	0.20^***
10.内在动机倾向	5.27	0.47	0.04	0.15^*	0.04	-0.09	-0.10	0.02	0.07	-0.03	-0.10
11.奖励	1.63	0.54	0.11	0.02	0.05	0.10	-0.11	0.10	-0.07	0.15^*	0.09	0.13^*
12.创意质量	1.35	0.76	0.13^*	0.07	0.10	0.15^*	-0.12	0.11	-0.12	0.25^***	-0.04	0.17^**	0.28^***
13.创意实施	2.16	0.76	0.06	0.02	-0.05	0.10	-0.15^*	0.12	-0.03	0.08	-0.01	0.15^*	0.66^***	0.24^***

变量名	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1.年龄	29.88	3.79
2.性别	0.22	0.41	0.03
3.教育程度	1.79	0.44	0.11	0.03
4.风险管理部	0.11	0.32	0.25^***	0.03	0.02
5.运营中心	0.55	0.50	-0.28^***	-0.28^***	-0.05	-0.39^***
6.资产管理部	0.11	0.31	0.16^**	-0.09	0.05	-0.12	-0.38^***
7.客户关系管理部	0.12	0.33	-0.10	0.17^**	-0.05	-0.13^*	-0.40^***	-0.13^*
8.组织任期	5.83	3.47	0.79^***	-0.12	0.07	0.37^***	-0.14^*	0.25^***	-0.28^***
9.职位任期	3.10	2.00	0.08	-0.31^***	-0.06	-0.08	0.28^***	-0.00	0.18^**	0.20^***
10.内在动机倾向	5.27	0.47	0.04	0.15^*	0.04	-0.09	-0.10	0.02	0.07	-0.03	-0.10
11.奖励	1.63	0.54	0.11	0.02	0.05	0.10	-0.11	0.10	-0.07	0.15^*	0.09	0.13^*
12.创意质量	1.35	0.76	0.13^*	0.07	0.10	0.15^*	-0.12	0.11	-0.12	0.25^***	-0.04	0.17^**	0.28^***
13.创意实施	2.16	0.76	0.06	0.02	-0.05	0.10	-0.15^*	0.12	-0.03	0.08	-0.01	0.15^*	0.66^***	0.24^***

变量类型	创意质量		创意实施
变量类型	模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4	模型5	模型6
控制变量
年龄	-0.05^*(0.02)	-0.06^*(0.02)	-0.01 (0.02)	-0.00 (0.02)	-0.00 (0.02)	-0.01(0.02)
性别	0.14 (0.13)	0.11 (0.12)	0.00 (0.13)	-0.03 (0.13)	-0.05 (0.10)	-0.04(0.10)
教育程度	0.14 (0.11)	0.13 (0.11)	-0.10 (0.11)	-0.14 (0.11)	-0.15 (0.09)	-0.15(0.08)
风险管理部	-0.09 (0.22)	-0.02 (0.22)	0.01 (0.23)	0.03 (0.23)	0.01 (0.18)	0.04(0.17)
运营中心	-0.25 (0.17)	-0.21 (0.17)	-0.28 (0.18)	-0.23 (0.18)	-0.13 (0.14)	-0.11(0.13)
资产管理部	-0.08 (0.22)	-0.06 (0.22)	0.07 (0.23)	0.09 (0.22)	0.06 (0.17)	0.12(0.17)
客户关系管理部	-0.28 (0.19)	-0.26 (0.19)	-0.19 (0.20)	-0.13 (0.20)	-0.07 (0.15)	-0.01(0.15)
组织任期	0.10^***(0.03)	0.10^***(0.03)	0.02 (0.03)	-0.00 (0.03)	-0.01 (0.02)	-0.01(0.02)
职位任期	-0.02 (0.03)	-0.02 (0.03)	0.01 (0.03)	0.01 (0.03)	-0.02 (0.02)	-0.02(0.02)
主效应
内在动机倾向		0.27^**(0.10)
创意质量				0.23^**(0.07)		0.17^**(0.06)
奖励					0.93^***(0.07)	0.94^***(0.07)
两重交互项
创意质量×奖励						-0.25^***(0.06)
F	3.45^**	3.95^***	1.10	2.19^*	19.71^***	19.01^***
R²	0.11	0.14	0.04	0.08	0.45	0.49
ΔR²		0.03^**		0.04^**		0.04^***