The Effect of Organizational Trust, Task Complexity and Intrinsic Motivation on Employee Creativity: Emphasis on Moderating Effect of Stress

  • Nam Yong Jo
  • Kun Chang Lee
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 182)


This research builds a theoretical model linking organizational trust, intrinsic motivation and task complexity with individual creativity. For the empirical test and special emphasis on the moderating effect of job stress level, the subject were divided into a higher stress group (N = 200) and lower stress group (N = 165) on the basis of the median value of job stress. The PLS method was applied to survey data gathered from employees working in Korean ICT companies. The result of analysis revealed that intrinsic motivation, task complexity and trust in organization is positively influencing employee creativity in this order among in the total group. On the other hand, comparative analysis of two groups based on the job stress level found that intrinsic motivation and task complexity were influencing employee creativity in same order in the both group; however the task complexity showed the second greater influence on the employee creativity in the lower stress group. Intrinsic motivation showed the greatest effect on employees’ creativity in the both group with statistical consistency.


Organizational trust intrinsic motivation task complexity individual creativity job stress 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amabile, T.M.: Creativity in context. Westview Press, Boulder (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scott, S.G., Bruce, R.A.: Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace. Academy of Management Journal 37, 580–607 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tierney, P., Farmer, S., Graen, G.: An Examination of Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Relevance of Traits and Relationships. Personnel Psychology 52, 591–620 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J., Oldham, G.R.: The Effects of Personal and Contextual Characteristics on Creativity: Where Should we go from Here? Journal of Management 30, 933–958 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ekvall, G.: Organizational Climate for Creativity and Innovation. European Journal of Work and Organization Psychology, 105–123 (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, M.H., Chang, Y.C., Hung, S.C.: Social Capital and Creativity in R&D Project Teams. R&D Management 38, 21–34 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bidault, F., Castello, A.: Trust and creativity: understanding the role of trust in creativity–oriented joint development. R&D Management 39, 259–270 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simonton, D.H.: Creativity, Task Complexity, and Intuitive versus Analytical Problem Solving. Psychological Reports 37, 351–354 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oldham, G.R., Cummings, A.: Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal 39, 607–634 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coelho, F., Augusto, M., Lages, L.F.: Contexture Factors and the Creativity of Frontline Employees: The Mediating Effect of Role Stress and Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Retailing 87, 31–45 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang, X., Bartol, K.M.: Linking Empowering Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Influence of Psychological Empowerment, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creative Process Engagement. Academy of Management Journal 53, 107–128 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fredrickson, B.L.: What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology 2, 300–319 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Amabile, T.M.: The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45, 357–376 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Edwards, J.R.: A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping, and Well-being in Organizations. Academy of Management Review 17, 238–274 (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Edwards, J.R.: An Examination of Competing Versions of The Person-Environment Fit Approach to Stress. Academy of Management Journal 39, 292–339 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baron, K., Khazanci, S., Nazarian, D.: The Relationship between Stressors and Creativity: A Meta-Analysis Examining Competing Theoretical Models. Journal of Applied Psychology 95, 201–212 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baron, R.S.: Distraction-conflict Theory: Progress and Problems. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19, 1–39 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anderson, N., De Dreu, C.K.W., Nijstad, B.A.: The Routinization of Innovation Research: A Constructively Critical Review of the State-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25, 147–173 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bunce, D., West, M.: Changing Work Environments, Innovative Coping Responses to Occupational Stress. Work and Stress 8, 319–331 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pelz, D.C.: Creative Tensions in the Research and Development Climate. In: Katz, R. (ed.) Managing Professionals in Innovative Organizations: A Collection of Readings, pp. 37–48. Ballinger, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chu, P.Y., Hsiao, N., Lee, F.W., Chen, C.W.: Exploring success factors for Taiwan’s government electronic tendering system: behavioral perspectives from end users. Government Information Quarterly 21(2), 219–234 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Janz, B.D., Prasarnphanich, P.: Understanding the antecedents of effectiveness knowledge management: the importance of a knowledge-center culture. Decision Sciences 134(2), 351–384 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nunnally, J.C.: Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y.: On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16(1), 74–94 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bryman, A., Cramer, D.: Quantitative Data Analysis for Social Scientists. Routledge, New York (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SKK Business SchoolSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.SKK Business School WCU Department of Interaction ScienceSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations