The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Ployhart, R.E., Van Iddekinge, C.H., Mackenzie, W.I. (2011). Acquiring and developing human capital in service contexts: the interconnectedness of human capital resources. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 353-368.

The phrases “human capital” and “human capital resources” have become buzz words that have gained popularity among HR professionals and researchers. You may wonder, what exactly is human capital, and why should you care?

Defining Human Capital

Human capital, or the combined knowledge, skills, and abilities of a group of people, is often thought of at the unit level.  A unit is simply a general term for any collection of employees that are all working towards a common purpose.  In some organizations, a unit can be a department or team.  For others, it may be the entire organization.  Human capital resources can be considered as either generic or unit-specific.

• Generic Human Capital – Resources that can be transferable across different jobs or organizations (i.e. an employee’s general cognitive ability, personality factors, etc.).
• Unit-Specific Human Capital – Resources that are non-transferable and are only applicable to a specific unit (i.e. knowledge of a department’s unique filing system, the ability to understand an organization’s jargon, etc ).

Human capital is dynamic, which means it is constantly fluctuating over time.  Factors such as constantly improving technology, employee turnovers, organizational climate, and others may lead to differing degrees of importance for the human capital resources that an organization has. With that in mind, should organizations value one type of human capital resource over the other? The answer to that question varies, but understanding the interconnectedness of the two levels may help.

Generic vs. Unit-Specific Human Capital

Imagine that your department needed to transition to a new coding and filing system. After receiving training in this new system employees should possess the unit-specific human capital resources that allow for higher job performance (i.e. they understand the new system, and can use it efficiently).  This higher performance then leads to better outcomes for the department and company as a whole.

Managers should be careful to not overlook the role that generic human capital resources play in the example above. Generic human capital resources are needed prior to adding unit-specific human capital resources.Without them, employees would lack the necessary skills and abilities that allowed for the development of this new skill-set. Therefore, generic human capital resources are often the knowledge, skills, and abilities that an employee can use to master unit-specific human capital resources that are uniquely valued within an organization.

In other words, the employees in the previous example would need to possess enough cognitive ability to understand the new system, before they would be able to master it and increase their productivity.

This connection means that both generic and unit-specific human capital resources are linked to increased job performance, which may lead to increased effectiveness for the unit or organization.

Practical Applications

The interrelated nature of generic and unit-specific human capital means that managers should be aware of both levels of resources.  An increase of generic human capital resources means that, at a future date, there will be an increase at the unit-specific resource level.  A careful balance of investing in the future flow of job performance (i.e. hiring new employees to bolster the generic resources) and investing in the present job performance levels (i.e. internally promoting employees to utilize organizationally-specific knowledge) may help an organization maintain an advantage over its competitors.

Interpretation by:

Kelly Whalen

DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Reinhard, M., & Dickhäuser, O. (2009). Need for cognition, task difficulty, and the formation of performance expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1062-1076.

As work tasks become more difficult, many people think that a person will generally set lower or more realistic expectations for performance progress, which should subsequently influence the level of performance success. While research has demonstrated relationships among task difficulty, performance expectancies, and performance outcomes, recent evidence is also pointing out that several cognitive factors complicate this relationship.  These factors are:

• Need for Cognition
• Task Difficulty
• Cognitive Strain
• Self-Concept

Need for Cognition

Need for cognition (NFC) involves the extent to which a person desires effortful, challenging thinking that involves such activities as information gathering and problem solving. NFC is not the same as intelligence, but rather is a motivation-related trait.

People with a greater NFC develop more realistic performance expectancies in alignment with task realities, whereas people low in NFC do not adapt their performance expectancies to the perceived difficulty of the task at hand. Specifically, people high in NFC demonstrate greater performance when their expectations are high, but low NFC people do not see their performance improved by having higher expectations.

Thus, people low in NFC appear to not put as much in-depth thought as people high in NFC into how the difficulty of a task can affect the progress made on it. As a consequence, the relationship between expectations and performance only appears to exist for individuals with a high need for cognition.

Task Difficulty

The relationship between expectations, NFC, and performance also depends on the actual difficulty of the task: the relationship exists for difficult tasks but not for easy tasks. This seems to be the case because easy tasks do not require as much effort and ability as difficult tasks. Thus, while high NFC people appear particularly well-suited to gauge how much effort and ability will be required to successfully perform, they only have this advantage over those with low NFC in forming expectations about harder assignments that require deeper thinking.

Cognitive Strain

When people have to divide their cognition (i.e., attention, memory) between tasks, it becomes harder for them to use information about task difficulty to form expectations about how well they will do on the task. Thus, when there is greater strain on a person’s cognition, such as having divided attention, the relationship between task difficulty and performance expectations is reduced or even eliminated. This even occurred for individuals high in NFC. Need for cognition appears to influence the task difficulty-expectancies relationship only when cognitive strain is relatively low.

Self-Concept

The self-concept of ability, or how one thinks of one’s self with regards to a particular ability, also seems to affect performance expectancies. General self-concept is a broader, abstract view of one’s self, while specific or task-focused self-concept involves views of one’s self that are related to specific behaviors. Research indicates that for people low in NFC (but not those high in NFC), general self-concept predicts performance expectancies. The reverse occurs with individuals high in NFC (but not those low in NFC), in that they demonstrate a relationship between specific self-concept (which requires more focused thinking) and their performance expectancies.

Implications for Practice

As revealed in the above summary, several different factors have shown to affect the relationship between the expectations people form about how well they will do and their subsequent actual performance. Some of these factors influence the relationship by conditionally affecting each other in potentially complicated ways.

Drawing from these findings, the DeGarmo Group offers several recommendations for professional practice:

• Research has indicated that expectations affect persistence, which affects performance. Strive to create more accurate expectations of work performance so that people will put in the level of effort needed to do well.
• Need for cognition is a dispositional trait, which means it is a relatively stable personal characteristic. Thus, it can be assessed for selection purposes with jobs that require a great deal of challenging thinking and problem solving. Also, this trait could be assessed to identify low NFC employees who may need additional coaching with regard to developmental activities like training or goal setting.
• Concerns about expectation effects should be focused on difficult work tasks.
• Reduce factors that increase cognitive load, such as strains on attention or memory, when trying to develop performance or goal expectations. For example, take care when working on goal expectations during a developmental performance appraisal with an employee who is at that time distracted by multiple projects or tasks.
• If a person’s self-concept is evoked when trying to develop performance expectancies for him or her, it may be important to consider whether the person is high or low in NFC; their standing on NFC could determine whether their general self-concept or task-specific self-concept influences the expectations they form.

Managing performance expectations so they more closely align with reality may be difficult, but doing so can have a substantial effect on the desired results. When crafting expectations through such processes as performance appraisals and goal-setting, keep in mind such factors as NFC, cognitive strain, self-concept, and task difficulty for producing optimal outcomes.

Interpretation by:

Donnie Johnson

DeGarmo Group

The following article is a summary of the research and practice implications from: DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The role of developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of Applied psychology, 94, 859 – 875.

Organizations spend billions of dollars on leadership development each year in hopes of reaping benefits of superior leadership (e.g., productive employees, strategic growth, higher profits). While most of these billions are spent on programs conducted outside of the leaders’ day-to-day jobs, informal on-the-job experiences and challenges prove to be the most educational and enriching for leaders.

Up for a Challenge?

The on-the-job experiences that provide opportunity for growth are those that challenge leaders, stretching them beyond their current knowledge base. Such developmental challenges involve:

• Unfamiliar responsibilities – handling new responsibilities and job duties
• Creating change – making changes in processes and employees’ behavior to solve problems and improve the organization
• High levels of responsibilities – managing important and complex projects and initiatives
• Working across boundaries – managing and influencing people or processes over which one does not have direct authority
• Managing diversity – leading people with different backgrounds, gender, ethnicity, and cultures

However, there comes a point when a developmental challenge can be too much for a leader to mentally process. At this point, the challenge results in diminishing returns due to the leader’s limited capacity to process the event/situation and overarousal and mental strain caused by anxiety and uncertainty of how to handle the challenge.

Leaders may vary in the amount and type of challenge they can handle; however, after a certain point, a leader will not gain any leadership skill development.

Feedback Availability

Although there may be situations that are too challenging for a leader to gain any developmental benefits, by making feedback readily available to the leader, the likelihood of such experiences still being productive will increase. Feedback provides support, reflection, and information helpful for the leader to handle a challenge and turn it into a learning experience.

Implications for Practice

In order for leaders to develop their leadership skills most effectively and efficiently, organizations need to provide the opportunity for them to be challenged on the job. While seemingly practical and informative alone, only so much can be gained from leadership training outside of the everyday workplace if it is not accompanied with on-the-job experiences and challenges.

Experiences on the job allow leaders to stretch their limits and learn. The key is to know leaders’ limits. By closely monitoring and supporting them through challenging experiences, leaders will continue to expand their leadership abilities and lead their organization to the next level.

Interpretation by:

Lexy Adkins

The DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Avolio, B.J., & Hannah, S.T. (2009). Leader developmental readiness. Industrial Organizational Psychology, 2, 284-287.

Organizations need leaders to move them in the right direction. Strong leaders can be developed, but how can organizations know when a person is ready for leadership development? Organizations must start by enhancing their capabilities for leadership development by focusing on individual’s “developmental readiness”.

What is developmental readiness?

Developmental readiness (DR) is a person’s ability and motivation to add new knowledge/information into the long-term memory. There are five factors that are generally related to one’s leadership developmental readiness.

• The nature of one’s goals:

People who are learning goal-oriented see themselves as continuously improving through learning and are more likely to use/solicit feedback for developmental purposes, while those who are performance goal-oriented are more likely to view themselves as having less flexibility for development and avoid challenging opportunities where they may face failure or negative feedback.

• The level of someone’s confidence in their developmental ability:

How confident a person is in their ability to improve (or develop) a particular skill or ability influences the way information related to development is interpreted and used, which can partly determine how engaged a person will be in leader development.

• The level of self-awareness a person has:

How clear people’s views of themselves are can affect how well they are able to incorporate developmental experiences and feedback. The greater the clarity a person has, the better the ability to find meaning in developmental opportunities and feedback.

• The level of self-complexity a person has:

Higher levels of complexity are indicative of greater cognitive and affective associations, and better ability to process and refine developmental information.

• The possession of second-order thinking:

Having an awareness of personal cognitive strengths and weaknesses allows a leader to reflect on experiences and focus on how they are being interpreted.

How can organizations use DR for development?

Leadership is contextualized, meaning the organization’s environment has an effect on the DR of its individuals. The environment in which DR occurs can aid or retard an individual’s development.

Those responsible for developing leaders must be able to adapt their techniques/modes of development to the individual through providing individual consideration.

Interpretation by:

Kathleen Melcher

DeGarmo Group

The following article is a summary of the research and practice implications from:

Organizations frequently  utilize web-based training because of the efficiency and flexibility it offers. As the popularity of this training option increases, so does the need to understand how it can be used most effectively. One demonstrated technique is maximizing learner control.

How Does Learner Control Affect Learning and Retention?

Learner control involves giving individuals a certain degree of control over the training. For example, learner control could be as simple as allowing employees to progress through the training at their own pace or as complex as allowing employees to determine what type of information they are learning. Typically, some degree of control between these two options has been found to be optimal.

When individuals have control over the learning environment, they may be more cognitively engaged, as they focus on information that is relevant and interesting to them. Because of this, they often experience more positive reactions to the training than if they had little or no control. In turn, they may also process the information more thoroughly and deeply, thereby increasing retention.

These positive reactions can be important in keeping trainees motivated, as well as implementing the training in the workplace. This is because as positive reactions towards the training increase, so does the individual’s motivation to complete the training successfully. Additionally, the individual is more likely to have more motivation to apply the learned behaviors or knowledge on the job and be more confident in doing so.

Practical Implications

Because satisfaction with web-based training can affect not only the successful completion of the training but also the individual’s probability she will transfer the training into the workplace, it is important for organizations to be mindful of using learner control when developing and implementing web-based training. Organizations should:

• Design the training with the trainee’s reactions in mind – ensuring individuals will react positively to the training is essential in ensuring trainee engagement and successful implementation in the workplace. This could also be useful to determine if employees will use the control they are granted appropriately, as trainees may not always make choices that will increase their learning/retention.
• Use some degree of learner control – allowing trainees to have some control, such as the ability to select presentation modes, start or pause the training, and review previous material may be beneficial.
• Make the features known to trainees – simply giving the trainee some instruction or education about the various learner control tools available and how to use them most effectively is necessary for the successful execution of a learner controlled web-based training program.

It is in the DeGarmo Group’s opinion that using methods like pilot testing could be useful to ensure that each of these methods are being used to optimize performance. If a strong negative reaction is found, then the training could be modified based on suggestions for improvement.

Using these simple techniques can help to maximize the effectiveness of web-based training. This is increasingly important because of the growing popularity of this training medium. Designing the training with employee reactions in mind, allowing some degree of learner control, and making the features known to trainees can ultimately increase the overall effectiveness of the training.

Interpretation by:

Elizabeth Allen

The DeGarmo Group

The following article is a summary of the research and practice implications from:

Continuous employee development is imperative in order to maintain a competitive edge in today’s constantly changing business environment. Although many organizations realize this need, employees may be reluctant to voluntarily participate in development programs – this may be because the employee does not see the need for development, does not know about development opportunities, does not feel necessary resources/means are available to participate, etc. So how can organizations encourage employees to participate in these voluntary programs without making participation feel mandatory?

Factors Related to Voluntary Participation

Many factors influence employee willingness to participate in development opportunities, including:

• Availability of activities – It is important for employees’ to not only have opportunities for participation, but also have multiple options for participation.  Simply offering a variety of development opportunities and making these opportunities known is crucial to employee involvement. Although this seems somewhat rudimentary, many organizations fail to advertise and publicize development opportunities, which can reduce participation.
• Attitudes and intentions to participate – Employees who believe that development opportunities will be pleasant and worthwhile are more likely to participate. Additionally, if the development will have some utility or future benefit to the individual they may be more likely to participate.
• Subjective norms – Norms and expectations established by other individuals in the organization, both supervisors and peers, can affect an employee’s desire to participate in development opportunities. Additionally, others’ opinions about a specific development opportunity can influence an individuals’ willingness to participate (i.e. coworker has participated in development and discusses their positive/negative experience with another coworker).
• Perceived control and support – Employees must feel as though they have control over whether or not they participate in development. Allowing employees to choose development opportunities can not only encourage participation but can also increase engagement in the development program. Additionally, the perceived support from the organization, supervisor and peers can be important. This can include:
  • Monetary compensation – Company pays for development or rewards the individual monetarily for completing the development program (i.e. pay raise, bonus, etc.).
  • Fostering an organizational climate that encourages development – Company policies and procedures support, reward and recognize employee development. This could include formal recognition of the employee, first choice on work projects or informally acknowledging employees’ efforts.
• Reactions to employee development – An individual’s opinion about a specific development opportunity can also impact willingness to participate in future programs. Positive development experiences in the past will influence the desire to participate in the future. Therefore, both the perception of the training itself AND the perception of trainings in the past can influence employees’ willingness to participate.

Practical Implications

Organizations offering voluntary development opportunities should keep in mind that it is important to:

• Offer a wide variety of quality trainings employees perceive as beneficial and applicable to their job. Employee surveys could be a useful mean in determining what employees perceive as valuable.
• Make these development opportunities known to employees. This can be done through advertising and should make the utility and applicability of the development clear, as well as illustrate how the organization will support the employee.
• Ensure employees are rewarded for their participation (whether it be monetary or recognition) as many times employees are devoting time and effort, above and beyond their normal work duties and responsibilities, to participate in the development.

Organizations that develop a culture and climate that values high quality development could gain a positive reputation with not only their employees, but also other organizations and individuals, which could ultimately also give the organization a competitive edge recruiting employees. Therefore, the organizational benefits of active employee development could extend beyond advancing employee knowledge and should be utilized to the fullest.

Interpretation by:

Elizabeth Allen

The DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from:

Experience is the key to learning how to be an effective leader. The problem with leadership development is ensuring that potential leaders are provided experiences – for how can one learn from experience if there are no experiences to learn from?

Decades of research on leadership (how it’s developed and what is most effective) has illuminated a set of common “facts” about how/why experience is essential.

“Facts” about learning experiences.

• Leadership is learned from experience: Research has shown that natural ability has little to do with becoming a leader when compared to experience.
• Early experiences are indispensable: Early work experience (short & long-term assignments and contact with other very good/poor supervisors) are essential.
• The challenges present are what make an experience effective: The unexpectedness, complexity, and pressures are a few of the challenges that make experiences effective.
• Experiences teach different lessons: Depending on what challenges are presented, people are able to learn different ways to handle them.
• Experiences can (and should) include “developmental” aspects: Feedback and coaching can enhance the learning experience, particularly when someone is having problems with presented challenges.
• Getting people the experience(s) they need is essential: Making experiences available is crucial, but matching developmental needs must also be intentional and a priority.
• Learning takes time and is ever-changing: There will be successes, delays, stops & starts, and learning from experiences is most likely when people are willing and encouraged to embrace the “lessons”.

Why don’t more organizations use this info?

There are a few reasons why more organizations aren’t using this knowledge to develop their leaders more effectively.

First, is the assumption that people either have leadership ability or they don’t, which can lead to the dismissal of those who don’t immediately succeed at challenges – believing there is a lack of leadership ability.

Secondly, results are achieved in the (relatively) short-term, while development is a longer-term objective. Pressure exists to provide challenging opportunities to those with “proven” success, instead of to those who may get greater benefit from the experience.

Additionally, the cost of experience-based leadership development is more difficult to calculate as compared to tracking the costs associated with training programs, consulting fees, or tuition, and therefore the ROI is more difficult to demonstrate for “experiences”.

Many organizations think they are including experience needs in their development opportunities. Job rotation and special projects are common techniques, but their focus is often on meeting business objectives (completing the assignments or learning different job responsibilities) and less on actually learning from the experiences.

“Experiences” can be a part of development.

Imperfect as they may be, there are some strategies organizations can use to try to ensure that “learning” is an integral component of providing experiences.

• Go with the flow: Work with others’ points of view and interject how experiences have contributed to current leaders’ success to make it easier for them to understand the need for truly meaningful experiences in leadership development.

• Make development a part of strategy: Identify the organization’s strategic initiatives, and the leadership challenges that will likely be present for them. Then the skills needed for those challenges can be developed by providing needed experiences (e.g., projects or mentors).

• Use business initiatives for development: Moving leadership development away from typical HR processes and toward a business initiative almost ensures it will remain a top priority, instead of becoming a routine “procedure” full of forms and other paperwork.

• Create a “leadership developer” role: Put someone in charge of understanding the organization’s potential leaders, their strengths and weaknesses, and the experiences that can be offered. Give this person the ability to take advantage of experiences as they arise, by influencing which leadership candidates may be best suited for different activities.

• Concentrate on learning from experiences: The emphasis (and record keeping) should be on whether someone learned/gained anything from different experiences, not just on the fact that they had them.

• Make “mastery” of job demands a criteria: There are a variety of ways to overcome challenges. Instead of the “one best way”, focus on if the skills or demands were mastered through a variety of ways.

Practical applications

Many HR departments already have processes in place (e.g., talent management or coaching) that could be redirected to focus on mastering skills learned through different experiences. The key is to make sure they are being utilized appropriately, focused on experience-based learning, and not treated as standard operating procedures which often lose their meaning and importance.

Rethinking an organization’s current development processes and the emphasis of them may be necessary to ensure that the opportunity (and requirement) to learn from experiences is a primary focus.

Interpretation by:

Kathleen Melcher

DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Iddekinge, C.H., Ferris, G.R., Perrewe, P.L., Perryman, A.A., Blass, F.R., Heetderks, T.D. (2009). Effects of selection and training on unit-level performance over time: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 929-843.

Human capital is the combined knowledge, skills, and other abilities of an organization’s workforce. Organizations that pay in to human resource development up front will reap the benefits of a more productive and knowledgeable workforce, as well as cost savings over time. Human capital can be broken down into two forms:

• Generic Human Capital – general skills or abilities of employees such as writing skills and cognitive ability. These can be either inherent to the employee or learned through previous jobs or education. These skills can be selected for during the hiring process.
• Firm-Specific Human Capital – knowledge and skills that are specific to a particular job or organization. For example, a specific protocol that employees are required to follow.  These skills must be trained by the organization.

Human capital is a valuable asset, especially as today’s jobs are becoming increasingly unstructured.   Organizations need employees who are able to fill a variety of roles and complete a large variety of tasks. These employees can be acquired and developed through selection and training.

Shifting Focus

Traditionally, HR researchers have tended to assess the value of HR practices such as training and selection as ways to improve “micro” level outcomes, such as individual-level job performance and transfer of training. This type of research tells us little about the benefits of training and selection on a “macro” level – focusing on broad-level outcomes such as team and organization performance. Unfortunately, managers and HR professionals are typically held accountable for these broad level outcomes, rather than individually-focused results.

New Findings

New research has recently shown that selection and training do in fact lead to “macro”-level organizational outcomes. These include:

• Customer Service Performance is influenced by selection and training. High quality customer service leads to a number of positive outcomes for organizations including customer satisfaction and retention.
• Unit-level Retention is related to training. Employees who receive adequate training will be equipped with the skills necessary to perform their jobs effectively. Well-trained employees will be more likely to remain on the job.
• Financial Performance is related to both selection and training. Customer satisfaction can lead to increased financial outcomes as a result of repeat business and word of mouth promotion. Increased retention will save the organization money because the valuable human capital obtained through training will remain with the organization for longer periods of time, thus reducing costs associated with hiring, training, and related administrative activities.

Changes over time

In addition to the macro level impact that selection and training have on organization-level outcomes, research has also revealed that changes in selection and training practices over time also result in changes in overall human capital quality. In essence:

• When business units increase investment in selection and training, overall quality of human capital will increase.
• When units decrease investment in selection and training, overall quality of human capital will decrease.

Practical Implications

The study’s authors offer practical implications that can be taken from this research:

• Investment in human capital, through training and selection, can result in substantial payoffs for organizations in terms of increased customer service, increased retention within work units, and increased profits.
• Because HR processes are often evaluated in terms of broad level outcomes such as financial performance, it’s important to emphasize to senior-level management other, non-financial benefits, such as improved performance, that investing in selection and training can have for the organization.

Interpretation by:

Michelle Toelle

DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 307-324.

There can be too much or too little of a good thing when it comes to assertiveness in managers. Recent research has found ratings of managerial leadership are highest at a moderate level of managerial assertiveness, with low and high assertiveness being associated with lower ratings. This summary will review possible work-related costs that may explain this effect.

Assertiveness Defined

Assertiveness is defined as speaking up for oneself and acting in one’s own interests (i.e., values, goals, and preferences). Assertiveness is thought of in terms of a continuum, ranging from being submissive to hostile. It is a relatively unique characteristic in that assertiveness can be a problem if it is too high or too low; other characteristics (such as intelligence or charisma) are usually only considered problematic if they are too low.

Aspects of Leadership

The research examined how perceptions of managerial assertiveness affected ratings of four leadership aspects:

• Motivation
• Social Influence
• Managing Conflict
• Team Work

A pattern was found that showed extreme ratings of assertiveness negatively affected the ratings of each of these aspects.

Assertiveness Costs: The Buddy and the Boss

The differences in leadership ratings may be based on different social and instrumental costs associated with varying degrees of assertiveness. When managers exhibit low levels of assertiveness, they may be more well-liked but be perceived as weak and not able to get the job done; this weakness can be thought of as the instrumental cost of being too passive or submissive. On the other hand, managers who are extremely aggressive may be thought of as highly effective in terms of getting work accomplished but suffer a social cost in that they are not well accepted as leaders because they are personally disliked.

Implications for Practice

Managers with a generally moderate level of assertiveness may be viewed more positively as a leader compared to low or high assertiveness managers. Moderate managers have the ability to accomplish the instrumental tasks at work without being socially abrasive. Some suggestions for encouraging managers to be moderately assertive include:

• Using skills training and coaching to teach managers how to be more (or less) assertive
• Regularly emphasizing the importance of moderate assertiveness to help ensure managerial behavior doesn’t revert back to previous unsatisfactory levels
• Changing managers’ norms about what is considered acceptable assertiveness

A key to improving perceptions of managerial leadership is changing managers’ expectations about what level of assertiveness is appropriate when their expectations are not congruent with how much assertiveness is actually necessary. This can be done through changing norms and skills using training or coaching. For those people who will not change their assertiveness if needed, other methods may be necessary in areas such as hiring or promotion to reduce the number of these individuals in managerial roles.

Interpretation by:

Donnie Johnson

DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from:

Creative thinking is valued across occupations and industries. Even in the most simple of jobs, creative ideas are necessary to solve novel problems that arise. For some occupations, creativity is a bona fide requirement. Creativity is also crucial for organizational growth and long-term success as companies must develop new ideas to stay competitive within their respective industries. When ideas and products can be easily mimicked by competitors, an organization’s best bet is to distinguish itself by consistently presenting fresh and original work. So how can organizations increase the level of creativity in their workforces? Evidence shows that creativity can be increased by influencing moods and emotions of employees. Before going into how emotions affect creativity, though, creativity should first be defined.

How is Creativity Defined?

Creativity involves:

• The number of ideas someone can generate (called fluency)
• The uniqueness of the ideas (i.e., originality)

Having a strong command of one of these dimensions does not mean someone will be particularly effective at the other. For example, a person can be fluent and produce many ideas, none of which are particularly original, while another person may only come up with a few ideas which are all highly unique. On the other hand, there are those people who are able to come up with many ideas, several of which are very original.

The Influence of Emotions

Moods and emotions are known to influence creativity, although in a more complicated way than people may realize. Conventional thought holds that to boost creativity, positive moods and emotions should be increased while negative moods and emotions should be decreased.

However, beyond being positive or negative, affective states can also be characterized as activating or deactivating. Activating states increase arousal while deactivating states decrease arousal. This distinction appears to affect creativity levels.

Specifically, activating emotions increase creative behavior while deactivating emotions do not. The table below categorizes different emotions depending on whether they are positive or negative and activating or deactivating:

Emotions under the “activating” column are more likely to increase creativity while emotions under the “deactivating” column are more likely to decrease creativity.

Paths to Creativity

Both positive and negative activating emotions lead to increased creativity, but they do so in different ways. Happiness and excitement increase a person’s cognitive flexibility, which can increase both fluency and originality. Cognitive flexibility involves creating ideas that span several different categories or perspectives. Negative activating emotions such as fear may increase persistence and focus, which can lead to more creative ideas but at a cost of longer time spent on trying to be creative.

Implications for Practice

These results suggest that a workplace climate that promotes activating emotions may lead to increased creativity. Some steps that can be taken to promote these types of emotions include:

• Increase employee engagement and satisfaction at work by such actions as giving employees more voice in procedures and making jobs feel meaningful to them.
• Promote trusting and cooperative work relationships through teamwork, mentoring, and developing a positive workplace culture.
• Utilize negative activating emotions when necessary by promoting persistent effort to meet difficult organizational and work goals.
• Encourage a sense of urgency to promote excitement by emphasizing the immediate nature of and energy required for completing a project.
• Reduce organizational constraints that can discourage employees, such as inadequate communication, unnecessary paperwork, or overly restrictive procedures that interfere with work and motivation.
• Aim for increasing positive rather than negative activating emotional states when creative ideas are needed quickly.

In work situations when fear, anxiety, or even anger are normal emotional reactions (e.g., during a recession or when facing an impending deadline), experiencing some level of negative activating emotions is not necessarily detrimental. Feelings of fear can help focus thoughts on coming up with creative solutions when needed.

There are different ways that emotions affect how one comes up with creative ideas. Which emotions to encourage at a particular time will depend on the nature of the work and the context in which creativity is needed.

Interpretation by:

Don Johnson

DeGarmo Group