Linking Core Self-Evaluation to Creativity: the Roles of Knowledge Sharing and Work Meaningfulness

  • Yejun Zhang
  • Jian-Min (James) Sun
  • Cai-Hui (Veronica) Lin
  • Hong Ren
Original Paper


Whereas core self-evaluation (CSE) has been proposed as an antecedent of creativity, surprisingly, little research has examined it. Extending prior research on CSE, this study investigates when and how CSE relates to creativity. Drawing on the approach/avoidance theoretical framework (Elliot & Thrash, 2002), we propose that employee’s knowledge sharing behavior serves as a mechanism that links CSE to creativity. We further examine the positive moderating effect of work meaningfulness as an activator of the approach tendencies of high-CSE employees. We tested our hypotheses using two-wave multi-source data from a sample of 200 researchers and their supervisors. The results fully supported our hypotheses, and offered both theoretical implications and practical implications.


Core self-evaluation Creativity Approach/avoidance framework Work meaningfulness Knowledge sharing 



  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.Google Scholar
  3. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  4. Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183. Scholar
  5. Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–173. Scholar
  6. 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, 1297–1333. Scholar
  7. Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Mondejar, R., & Chu, C. W. (2017). Core self-evaluations and employee voice behavior test of a dual-motivational pathway. Journal of Management, 43, 946–966. Scholar
  8. Ashforth, B. E., & Vaidyanath, D. (2002). Work organizations as secular religions. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11, 359–370. Scholar
  9. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 75–105. Scholar
  10. Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 157–167. Scholar
  11. Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16, 78–117. Scholar
  12. Bernerth, J. B., & Aguinis, H. (2016). A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69, 229–283. Scholar
  13. Bipp, T., & Demerouti, E. (2015). Which employees craft their jobs and how? Basic dimensions of personality and employees’ job crafting behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88, 631–655. Scholar
  14. Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark side, too: A review and agenda for research on other-oriented motives, behavior, and impact in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10, 599–670. Scholar
  15. Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W., & Thorndike, R. (1973). Cross-cultural methods. New York: Publication John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  16. Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J. (2012). The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 413–435. Scholar
  17. Černe, M., Nerstad, C. G., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2014). What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 172–192. Scholar
  18. Chang, C. H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012). Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of Management, 38, 81–128. Scholar
  19. Chiang, Y. H., Hsu, C. C., & Hung, K. P. (2014). Core self-evaluation and workplace creativity. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1405–1413. Scholar
  20. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple correlation/regression analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Cohen-Meitar, R., Carmeli, A., & Waldman, D. A. (2009). Linking meaningfulness in the workplace to employee creativity: The intervening role of organizational identification and positive psychological experiences. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 361–375. Scholar
  22. Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50, 352–364. Scholar
  23. Dalal, D. K., & Zickar, M. J. (2012). Some common myths about centering predictor variables in moderated multiple regression and polynomial regression. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 339–362. Scholar
  24. De Dreu, C. K., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 739–756. Scholar
  25. Dewett, T. (2006). Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 27–45. Scholar
  26. Dong, Y., Bartol, K. M., Zhang, Z. X., & Li, C. (2017). Enhancing employee creativity via individual skill development and team knowledge sharing: Influences of dual-focused transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 439–458. Scholar
  27. Du Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 20–29. Scholar
  28. Ederer, F., & Manso, G. (2013). Is pay for performance detrimental to innovation? Management Science, 59, 1496–1513. Scholar
  29. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22. Scholar
  30. Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804–818. Scholar
  31. Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1270–1279. Scholar
  32. Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305–323. Scholar
  33. Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 618–630. Scholar
  34. Ferguson, M. J., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Evaluative readiness: the motivational nature of automatic evaluation. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 289–306). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ferris, D. L., Rosen, C. R., Johnson, R. E., Brown, D. J., Risavy, S. D., & Heller, D. (2011). Approach or avoidance (or both?): Integrating core self-evaluations within an approach/avoidance framework. Personnel Psychology, 64, 137–161. Scholar
  36. Ford, C. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1112–1142. Scholar
  37. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 473–496. Scholar
  38. Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). Do social stressors impact everyone equally? An examination of the moderating impact of core self-evaluations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 153–164. Scholar
  39. Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 1–22.
  40. Heffner, M., & Sharif, N. (2008). Knowledge fusion for technological innovation in organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12, 79–93. Scholar
  41. House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323–352.
  42. Hu, J., Wang, Z., Liden, R. C., & Sun, J. (2012). The influence of leader core self-evaluation on follower reports of transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 860–868. Scholar
  43. Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2002). Diagnosing and fighting knowledge-sharing hostility. Organizational Dynamics, 31, 60–73. Scholar
  44. Janssen, O., & Prins, J. (2007). Goal orientations and the seeking of different types of feedback information. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 235–249. Scholar
  45. Jiang, L., & Johnson, M. J. (2018). Meaningful work and affective commitment: A moderated mediation model of positive work reflection and work centrality. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33, 545–558. Scholar
  46. Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Chang, C. H. (2011). To aggregate or not to aggregate: Steps for developing and validating higher-order multidimensional constructs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 241–248. Scholar
  47. Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2008). Getting to the core of core self-evaluation: a review and recommendations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 391–413. Scholar
  48. Jones, B. F., & Weinberg, B. A. (2011). Age dynamics in scientific creativity. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 201102895.
  49. Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and work success. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 58–62. Scholar
  50. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: the role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 257–268. Scholar
  51. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237–249. Scholar
  52. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11, 167–187. Scholar
  53. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoreson, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–332. Scholar
  54. Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. (2007). Capitalizing on one's advantages: role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1212–1227. Scholar
  55. Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2011). Implications of core self-evaluations for a changing organizational context. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 331–341. Scholar
  56. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188.Google Scholar
  57. Judge, T. A., Van Vianen, A. E., & De Pater, I. E. (2004). Emotional stability, core self-evaluations, and job outcomes: A review of the evidence and an agenda for future research. Human Performance, 17, 325–346. Scholar
  58. Kacmar, K. M., Collins, B. J., Harris, K. J., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and job performance: The role of the perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1572–1580. Scholar
  59. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29, 113–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kim, T. Y., Hon, A. H., & Crant, J. M. (2009). Proactive personality, employee creativity, and newcomer outcomes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 93–103. Scholar
  61. Kim, T. Y., Liden, R. C., Kim, S. P., & Lee, D. R. (2015). The interplay between follower core self-evaluation and transformational leadership: Effects on employee outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 345–355. Scholar
  62. Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 186–207. Scholar
  63. Lin, H. F. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28, 315–332. Scholar
  64. Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18, 285–300. Scholar
  65. Lu, L., Leung, K., & Koch, P. T. (2006). Managerial knowledge sharing: The role of individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors. Management and Organization Review, 2, 15–41. Scholar
  66. Lu, L., Lin, X., & Leung, K. (2012). Goal orientation and innovative performance: The mediating roles of knowledge sharing and perceived autonomy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, E180–E197. Scholar
  67. Lundvall, B. Å., & Nielsen, P. (2007). Knowledge management and innovation performance. International Journal of Manpower, 28, 207–223. Scholar
  68. Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees’ creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 757–767. Scholar
  69. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. J., & Von Davier, M. (2013). Why item parcels are (almost) never appropriate: Two wrongs do not make a right—Camouflaging misspecification with item parcels in CFA models. Psychological Methods, 18, 257–284. Scholar
  70. May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37. Scholar
  71. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 535–546. Scholar
  72. Michaelson, C., Pratt, M. G., Grant, A. M., & Dunn, C. P. (2014). Meaningful work: Connecting business ethics and organization studies. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 77–90. Scholar
  73. Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23, 13–17. Scholar
  74. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus Version 7 user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  75. Oldham, G. R. (2003). Stimulating and supporting creativity in organizations. In S. E. Jackson, M. A. Hitt, & A. S. DeNisi (Eds.), Managing knowledge for sustained competitive advantage: Designing strategies for effective human resource management (pp. 243–273). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  76. O'Neill, T. A., McLarnon, M. J., Xiu, L., & Law, S. J. (2016). Core self-evaluations, perceptions of group potency, and job performance: The moderating role of individualism and collectivism cultural profiles. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89, 447–473. Scholar
  77. Park, N. K., Chun, M. Y., & Lee, J. (2016). Revisiting individual creativity assessment: Triangulation in subjective and objective assessment methods. Creativity Research Journal, 28, 1–10. Scholar
  78. Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28, 89–106. Scholar
  79. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Scholar
  80. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. Scholar
  81. Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 309–327). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc..Google Scholar
  82. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. Scholar
  83. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. Scholar
  84. Radaelli, G., Lettieri, E., Mura, M., & Spiller, N. (2014). Knowledge sharing and innovative work behaviour in healthcare: A micro-level investigation of direct and indirect effects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23, 400–414. Scholar
  85. Reagan, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240–267. Scholar
  86. Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635. Scholar
  87. Rode, J. C., Judge, T. A., & Sun, J. M. (2012). Incremental validity of core self-evaluations in the presence of other self-concept traits: An investigation of applied psychology criteria in the United States and China. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19, 326–340. Scholar
  88. Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–127. Scholar
  89. Shah, N. P., Cross, R., & Levin, D. Z. (2018). Performance benefits from providing assistance in networks relationships that generate learning. Journal of Management, 44, 412–444. Scholar
  90. Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232. Scholar
  91. Steger, M. F., & Dik, B. J. (2010). Work as meaning: Individual and organizational benefits of engaging in work meaningfulness. In P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Page (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work (pp. 131–142). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring work meaningfulness: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 322–337. Scholar
  93. Steger, M. F., Littman-Ovadia, H., Miller, M., Menger, L., & Rothmann, S. (2013). Engaging in work even when it is meaningless: Positive affective disposition and work meaningfulness interact in relation to work engagement. Journal of Career Assessment, 21, 348–361. Scholar
  94. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationships to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137–1148. Scholar
  95. Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 769–780. Scholar
  96. Wanberg, C. R., Glomb, T. M., Song, Z., & Sorenson, S. (2005). Job-search persistence during unemployment: A 10-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 411–430. Scholar
  97. Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 115–131. Scholar
  98. Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). 12 structural equation modeling in management research: A guide for improved analysis. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 543–604. Scholar
  99. Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 21–33. Scholar
  100. Zhang, H., Kwan, H. K., Zhang, X., & Wu, L. Z. (2014). High core self-evaluators maintain creativity: A motivational model of abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 40, 1151–1174. Scholar
  101. Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682–696. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
corrected publication December/2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Price College of Business, Division of Management & International BusinessUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA
  2. 2.School of Labor and Human ResourceRenmin University of ChinaBeijingChina
  3. 3.Queen’s Management SchoolQueen’s University BelfastBelfastUK
  4. 4.Sheldon B. Lubar School of BusinessUniversity of Wisconsin MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations