The Pygmalion Process and Employee Creativity

By Pamela Tierney, Steven M. Farmer. 2004

646 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/647631e2639b4f2cbd804849fd1e3e28ce9402c8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Leading to Stimulate Employees' Ideas: A Quantitative Review of Leader–Member Exchange, Employee Voice, Creativity, and Innovative Behavior (2017, background): “Through developing positive beliefs about VC 2017 International Association of Applied Psychology. their self, these employees are more likely to set up challenging goals, generate new ideas, initiate creative solutions, and enjoy the feeling of “being creative” (Tierney & Farmer, 2004).”
Linking Meaningfulness in the Workplace to Employee Creativity: The Intervening Role of Organizational Identification and Positive Psychological Experiences (2009, methodology): “Educational level was controlled for because previous research indicates that people who hold different educational experience may develop different work attitudes and behaviors, such as creativity (Tierney & Farmer, 2004).”
Utilitarianism or romanticism: the effect of rewards on employees' innovative behaviour (2011, background): “enriching job responsibility and empowerment (Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Amabile, 1997; Tierney and Farmer, 2004);”
Unmasking the creative self-efficacy–creative performance relationship: the roles of thriving at work, perceived work significance, and task interdependence (2020, methodology): “We controlled for conscientiousness and supervisor-rated prior task performance because these may influence creative performance (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007; Gong et al., 2009; Tierney & Farmer, 2004).”
Deepening our understanding of creativity in the workplace: A review of different approaches to creativity research. (2011, background): “For example, Tierney and Farmer (2002, 2004) developed the construct of creative self-efficacy, which is the extent to which employees believe they have the ability to produce creative work, and found that creative self-efficacy was positively associated with creativity.”
Leader–member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work (2009, background): “Researchers have directed some attention to studying how leaders provide the impetus for creativity in the workplace (e.g., Redmond et al., 1993; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Tierney & Farmer, 2004; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999).”
The Influence of Individual Factors, Supervision and Work Environment on Creative Self-Efficacy (2010, neutral): “…supervisory styles are important stimuli for employee creativity (e.g. Amabile and Conti, 1999, Amabile et al., 1996, 2004; Amabile and Gryskiewicz, 1989; Madjar et al., 2002; Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Shalley and Gilson, 2004; Tierney and Farmer, 2002, 2004; Zhou and George, 2003).”
Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: A meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature (2016, background): “O rganizational Behavior and H um an D ecision Processes (2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.001 Appendix C (continued) Study N a of creativity a of CSE r Country Individualismb Tightnessc Creativity measured Self-efficacy measuree Publication statusf Watt (2007) 559 .94 .87 .67a US 40 ”
The Structural Relationships Between Optimism and Innovative Behavior: Understanding Potential Antecedents and Mediating Effects (2011, background): “Tierney and Farmer (2004) showed that creative self-efficacy was a significant mediator of employee views of creativity expectations and employee creative performances.”
The Effects of Critical Team Member Assertiveness on Team Performance and Satisfaction (2006, methodology): “…that path analysis is appropriate when testing mediation with multiple paths (e.g., Baron & Kenney, 1986; Barry & Stewart, 1997; Humphrey, Ellis, Conlon, & Tinsley, 2004; Tierney & Farmer, 2004) and with small to moderate sample sizes (e.g., Efron & Tibshirani, 1993; Shrout & Bolger, 2002).”