Abstract
Despite an increasing need for creativity in all corners of business, the spotlight of most recruitment and selection procedures has not shifted accordingly. Measures of creative ability that are to be used in practice should preferably be brief and operationally valid in the small and relatively homogenous pools of subjects that companies typically have to deal with. This article examines the performance of different assessment methods of creative ability in two small-scale hiring contexts, i.e., with prospective marketing employees (marketing students) and with current employees of a creative marketing agency. With prospective marketing employees, a combination of test ratings and student CV ratings of creative ability shows high operational validity. Supervisory ratings and self-ratings of creative ability are reasonable alternatives to test ratings for senior and long-time employees, but should be used with caution when junior employees and recent recruits are concerned.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Althuizen, N., Wierenga, B., & Rossiter, J. R. (2010). The validity of two brief measures of creative ability. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 53–61.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer.
Andrews, J., & Smith, D. C. (1996). In search of the marketing imagination: factors affecting the creativity of marketing programs for mature products. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 174–187.
Auzmendi, E., Villa, A., & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a newly constructed multiple-choice creativity instrument. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 89–95.
Coppedge, M. (2007). Theory building and hypothesis testing: large- vs. small-N research on democratization. In G. Munck (Ed.), Regimes and democracy in Latin America: theories and findings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T., & Smith, S. (1992). Creative cognition: theory, research, and applications. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Goff, K., & Torrance, E. P. (2002). Abbreviated Torrance test for adults manual. Bensenville: Scholastic Testing Service.
Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., & Solomon, S. (1999). Toward identifying the inventive templates of new products: a channeled ideation approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 200–210.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Heneman, R. L., Tanksy, J. W., & Camp, S. M. (2000). Human resource practice in small and medium-sized enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 11–16.
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.
IBM. (2010). Capitalizing on complexity: insights from the global chief executive officer study. Somers: IBM.
Kabanoff, B., & Rossiter, J. R. (1994). Recent developments in applied creativity. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 283–324). London: Wiley.
Kilgour, M., & Koslow, S. (2009). Why and how do creative thinking techniques work? Trading off originality and appropriateness to make more creative advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 298–309.
Kris, E. (1952). Psychoanalytic exploration in art. New York: International Universities Press.
Livingstone, L. P., Nelson, D. L., & Barr, S. H. (1997). Person-environment fit and creativity: an examination of supply-value and demand-ability versions of fit. Journal of Management, 23, 119–146.
Marsh, R. L., Ward, T. B., & Landau, J. (1999). The inadvertent use of prior knowledge in a generative cognitive task. Memory and Cognition, 27, 94–105.
McKinney, A. P., Carlson, K. D., Mecham, R. L., D’Angelo, N. C., & Connerley, M. L. (2003). Recruiters’ use of GPA in initial screening decisions: higher GPAs don’t always make the cut. Personnel Psychology, 56, 823–845.
Patterson, F., Kerrin, M., Gatto-Roissard, G., & Coan, P. (2009). Everyday innovation: how to enhance innovative working in employees and organisations. London: NESTA.
Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35–61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2007). Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: the effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and originality of generated ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 933–946.
Robertson, I. T., & Smith, M. (2001). Personnel selection. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 441–472.
Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 305–335.
Rubera, G., Ordanini, A., & Mazursky, D. (2010). Toward a contingency view of new product creativity: assessing the interactive effects of consumers. Marketing Letters, 21, 191–206.
Sawyer, A., & Peter, J. P. (1983). The significance of statistical significance tests in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 122–133.
Scherbaum, C. A. (2005). Synthetic validity: past, present and future. Personnel Psychology, 58, 481–515.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 162–173.
Schmitt, N. (2007). The value of personnel selection: reflections on some remarkable claims. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 19–23.
Scratchley, L. S., & Hakstian, A. R. (2001). The measurement and prediction of managerial creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 367–384.
Scullen, S. E., & Meyer, B. C. (2012). More applicants or more applications per applicant? A big question when pools are small. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206312438774.
Sellier, A.-L., & Dahl, D. W. (2011). Focus! Creative success is enjoyed through restricted choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 996–1007.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management, 30, 413–432.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance tests of creative thinking: norms-technical manual. Lexington: Personnel Press.
Ward, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: the role of category structure in exemplar generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 1–40.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. Timothy Heath, Ayse Önculer, John Rossiter, and Berend Wierenga are thanked for their feedback and comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. The author is also grateful to Ed van Eunen, René Hendriks, Tom Wilms, Pieter Brusman, Eric Welles, Sebastiaan Bongers, Natasja Deelen, Jeanette Bisschop, Ragnhild Savenije, and Willem Royaards for their contributions to this research project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Althuizen, N. The relative performance of different methods for selecting creative marketing personnel. Mark Lett 23, 973–985 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-012-9198-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-012-9198-x