Distraction: the Problem with Extrinsic Motivation and Proactive Creativity Distraction: the Problem with Extrinsic Motivation and Creativity - Competing Goals distract Reward Responsive Individuals – Wolsink, I. , Belschak, F. D. , and Den Hartog, D. N. University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business, Department of leadership and management Submitted for publication Author Contributions Theory and studies were designed by I. Wolsink. I. Wolsink acted as lead author, with all authors contributing to the writing by providing valuable comments and input to the text of the manuscript. 1 Distraction: the Problem with Extrinsic Motivation and Proactive Creativity Abstract (200) Extrinsic motivation is assumed to be detrimental to creativity. The goal of the present paper, is to investigate a possible underlying mechanism: distraction by extrinsic rewards for tasks that compete with creativity. In organizations, creativity is often not an employees’ primary task. Creativity is self-initiated (proactive), and competes with other tasks and goals. We propose that it is this competition between goals, that drives the negative relationship between extrinsic motivation and creativity. In two studies, we investigated whether reward saliency of competing goals moderates whether trait-extrinsic motivation (reward responsiveness) negatively influences proactive creativity in organizations, and in the lab. The results of a multi-source field study (Study 1) showed that creativity proactively shared with leaders decreased when rewards for competing goals were likely, and increased when they were unlikely. We replicated this interaction in an experimental design (Study 2), where reward likelihood for a competing goal was manipulated within-participants. Proactive creativity of reward responsive participants decreased when a competing goal reward was likely, and increased when it was unlikely. Our studies suggest that trait-extrinsic motivation plays an important role in contexts where multiple tasks compete for attention (i.e., in organizations), where it sometimes inhibits, but can also enhance proactive creativity. 2 Distraction: the Problem with Extrinsic Motivation and Proactive Creativity “Passion is one great force that unleashes creativity, because if you're passionate about something, then you're more willing to take risks.” Yo-Yo Ma, cellist Can creativity however, next to being motivated by a passionate force from within, also arise from a desire for external rewards, such as awards, financial gain, or social recognition? The creativity literature seems divided regarding this question. On the one hand, people who have a general desire to gain extrinsic rewards are less creative than those who are passionate and seek out tasks for enjoyment (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994). On the other hand, people who are extrinsically rewarded for their creativity show enhanced creative performance afterwards (Byron & Khazanchi, 2012). Thus, although situational extrinsic rewards seem to be creativity enhancing, a general desire for extrinsic rewards seems to be detrimental to creativity. We attempt to integrate both views by showing under which circumstances a tendency to desire extrinsic rewards indeed stifles creativity, and when such a desire might inspire and enhance creative performance. In the organizational literature, to be creative is to generate new yet appropriate ideas, insights, or solutions to problems (Amabile, 1983; Runco & Jaeger, 2012; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Creative solutions are relevant in everyday life (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2007), but particularly in contexts that require change (Sawyer, 2008). Employees’ creative ideas are thus highly relevant in changing organizations (Amabile, 1983; Amabile, Goldfarb, & Brackfield, 1990; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Zhou, 1998). Currently, most knowledge about how creative ideas are generated, stems from experimental or correlational studies in which participants are explicitly requested to be creative, and in which creativity is typically a participants’ main task (e.g., Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008; Byron, Khazanchi, 3 Distraction: the Problem with Extrinsic Motivation and Proactive Creativity & Nazarian, 2010; Davis, 2009; Kim, 2005). For the remainder of the paper, we will refer to this as reactive creativity. That is, creativity in response to a direct request to come up with ideas or solutions and as the only or the principal task individuals focus on. Such requested and core task creativity, however, is not necessarily a valid representation of how creativity naturally occurs in everyday life. For example, in most organizations (creative industries excluded), creativity is not the main task to focus on. There are many other goals that require employees’ attention, and we know far less about when and why people initiate creativity when it is not explicitly requested, and while other goals in the environment compete for attention. This unrequested, self-initiated type of creativity, which we will refer to as proactive creativity (e.g., Unsworth, 2001), is concerned with providing a voluntarily solution to a self- discovered problem. Proactive creativity is discretionary and self-started and especially relevant in organizational contexts where being creative is typically not the employee’s only task, but rather occurs in addition to other, more clearly defined core tasks. For example, employees may initiate change in the workplace by voluntarily communicating ideas, problems, or opinions, which is defined as voice behaviour (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Voice provides input for discovering and solving organizational problems and improving organizational processes (Morrison, 2011; Zhou & George, 2001) and is generally assumed to be extra-role, that is, not defined as the employees’ formal task (Van Dyne & Le Pine, 1998). The creative quality of voice refers to how novel and useful voice is (reference1), and thus refers to the creativity of proactively suggested ideas, problems or opinions. The creative quality of voice is a particularly useful concept to assess proactive creativity, and contrast it with reactive creativity (which is also about originality and usefulness, but not a voluntarily 1 Removed for blind review. 4 Distraction: the Problem with Extrinsic Motivation and Proactive Creativity communicated solution to a self-discovered problem). In this paper, we thus use creativity of voice as an observation of proactive creativity in organizations. We focus on similarities and differences between reactive and proactive creativity, because we think this can help explain when extrinsic motivation hinders creativity, and when it does not. Specifically, we focus on when creativity (reactive or proactive) is related to individuals’ approach sensitivity. Approach sensitivity is a trait, that reflects an individuals’ sensitivity to cues of impending rewards (Carver & White, 1994). Such sensitivity is associated with positive affect: people who are approach sensitive show stronger increases in happiness in response to rewarding outcomes (Carver, 2006). Since positive affect enhances reactive creativity (Baas et al., 2008), De Dreu, Nijstad, and Baas (2011) argued that approach sensitivity helps creativity via this affective mechanism. Their idea was supported by a series of studies showing a positive association between approach sensitivity and reactive creativity. In this paper, we build on and extend these findings. More specifically, we study two underlying motivational routes of approach sensitivity: one intrinsic (finding creativity in itself rewarding and fun), and one extrinsic (hoping for tangible rewards after creativity). Although we investigate both motivational routes, intrinsic and extrinsic, the main focus of our research is on the latter one: the individuals’ sensitivity to extrinsic rewards or in short: reward responsiveness. We propose that, depending on the creative task context (reactive or proactive), and the extrinsic attractive power of competing goals in the environment, the relationship between reward responsiveness and creativity will be different. Reactive creativity is the core task of participants, there is a clear request and instructions on what to do, and there are no distractions in the form of other (potentially rewarding) tasks. In contrast, proactive creativity is self-started, discretionary, and competes with other tasks that may be more rewarding. While reward responsiveness may not harm reactive creativity 5 Distraction: the Problem with Extrinsic Motivation and Proactive Creativity because there is little distraction, it may hinder creativity in an environment where rewards for competing tasks are available, and especially when those rewards are salient and thus draw attention away from creativity. We specifically investigate how the relationship between reward responsiveness and creativity changes depending on the presence as well as the extrinsic strength (activation) of competing extrinsic goals in the environment. We present two studies, (1) an organizational field study with employees’ self- reported strength (activation) of competing goals, and (2) a within-participants experimental design in which competing goals were activated through manipulating their reward likelihood. In study 1, employees completed a reactive creativity task, and their colleagues and leaders reported on the employees’ proactive creativity shared with them in the organization. In study 2, participants proactively initiated creative suggestions