Search

What does it take to be an effective leader? This is a fundamental question that intrigues management scholars across the world. Featuring four papers by research teams from 14 different institutions across four countries (i.e., Canada, China, the UK, the US), the proposed symposium aims to advance discussions on the cultural determinants of effective leadership with a focus on three interconnected themes: (1) the changing dynamics of globalization, (2) cultural differences in effective leadership, and (3) universality of effective leadership across culture. By incorporating theories and evidence from multiple levels (societal level, team level, individual level), diverse contexts, and mixed methodologies, the present symposium offers important theoretical and practical insights into the development and identification of effective leaders on a global stage. GLOBE 2020: Preliminary Findings on Leadership Across 134 Countries Author: Mansour Javidan; Thunderbird School of Global Management at ASU Author: Carolyn Egri; Simon Fraser U. Author: Peter W. Dorfman; New Mexico State U. Author: Richard Cotton; U. of Victoria Leader Effectiveness in Multicultural Teams: Global Identity, Culture Status, Warmth, and Competence Author: Ya-Ru Chen; Cornell U. Author: Jean SK Lee; China Europe International Business School (CEIBS) Author: Joel Brockner; Columbia U. From Communication Style to Leadership Potential: A Cross-Cultural Study on China and the U.S. Author: Xiao-Ping Chen; U. of Washington Author: Misha Mariam; U. of Washington, Bothell Author: Xiaoran Hu; London School of Economics and Political Science Leaders on a Moral Pedestal: How Culture Influences Implicit Theories of Leaders' Personal Morality Author: Shiyu Yang; Texas A&M International U. Author: Qiongjing Hu; Zhejiang U. Author: Jihyeon Kim; Purdue U. Author: Jackson Lu; MIT Sloan School of Management [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Creativity, the generation of novel and useful ideas, drives organizational innovation and competitiveness (Amabile, 1988). However, the recognition of creativity is difficult, and individuals often possess their own evaluation criteria and heuristics that influence their judgements of creativity (Berg, 2019; Zhou et al., 2019). This has important implications for managers and organizations as successful creativity evaluation is required for efficient resource allocation and collaboration to drive organizational innovation. In recent years, scholars have begun examining the factors that facilitate or hinder the creative evaluation process (e.g., Berg, 2019; Proudfoot & Fath, 2021). Individuals often have their own criteria on what is considered creative. These criteria are influenced by a variety of factors ranging from the individual's momentary state to more enduring personal characteristics. Papers in this symposium explore a wide range of factors such as entrepreneurs' gender and entrepreneurial framing, evaluators' political ideologies, and affective states that influence how individuals perceive and recognize creativity. They not only broaden the horizon of creativity evaluation literature but also bridge the literature with other important research topics such as entrepreneurship, social politics, gender, and affect. Furthermore, studies included in this submission leveraged diverse methods and data sources such as machine learning, secondary data, and experiments. They thus illuminate novel approaches to study creativity evaluation and show great potential in this research area. In its third year running since the 81st Academy of Management Annual Meeting in 2021, this symposium facilitates advancement of future directions in this nascent research stream and provide important managerial insights on ways to manage biases in evaluating employee creativity. When Creativity Leads Him to be More Successful: The Interaction between Gender and Entrepreneuri Author: Qing Gong; Boise State U. Author: Catherine Paek; Boise State U. Blue Creativity vs. Red Creativity: The Value-laden Nature of Creativity Evaluation Author: Shiyu Yang; Texas A&M International U. Author: Jeffrey Loewenstein; U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign The Influence of Managers' Affective States on Creativity Endorsement Author: Rebekah SungEun Hong; U. of Maryland, College Park Author: Vijaya Venkataramani; U. of Maryland Author: Myeong-gu Seo; U. of Maryland Overvaluing "A-ha!": The Experience of Insight Shapes Creativity Judgments Author: Brian J. Lucas; Cornell U. Author: Wayne Johnson; Cornell SC Johnson College of Business Exploring Experts' Approaches to Creativity Evaluation Author: Yingyue Luan; Cambridge Judge Business School Author: YeunJoon Kim; U. of Cambridge [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The contemporary time is witnessing the rise of a market society (Fourcade & Healy, 2007). Echoing this observation, organizational theorists have documented the increasing popularity and the expanding jurisdiction of the market logic (Thornton, & Ocasio, 2008). One manifestation of the growing force of the market is that languages originally used for describing economic transactions have been normalized in everyday communications in and around organizations, such as "you are an 'asset'" and ""human 'capital' management"". These linguistic examples illustrate that given the organizational emphasis on economic goals (e.g., efficiency and profitability), individuals in organizations are often subordinated to the same market rationalities and viewed as economically useful products or resources (Cheney & Carroll, 1997). The current research aims to understand how the perception and treatment of individuals as products or objects of monetary value (i.e., commodification of self) (Cohen, 1988; Radin, 1996; Strasser, 2003) may affect individual creativity. A survey study with a sample of working professionals revealed a negative correlation between job creativity and felt commodification at work (Study 1). Moving beyond this initial correlational data, Studies 2 to 5 use experimental designs to causally test the implications of commodification for creativity. Results suggest that organizations that commodify their members are perceived as not valuing creativity (Study 2). Members of such organizations tend to withhold rather than share their own creative ideas (Study 3). Feeling commodified by one's employer hinders individual creativity (Study 4). Activating a creative identity tends to lower perceived Person-Organization fit with organizations that commodify their members (Study 5). Lastly, drawing upon the antithetical nature of the relationship between commodification and creativity, we tested the prediction that engaging in creative activities may serve as an antidote to commodification by reaffirming one's individuality (Study 6). Taken together, the results of the studies suggest that organizations that commodify its members may be inadvertently turning away creative employees, suppressing the creativity of the employees they hire, and marginalizing employees who seek to be creative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our symposium focuses on the association between temporal individual differences and creativity, bringing together ongoing research which adopts a subjective temporal lens on the study of creativity. We present four empirical projects that incorporate different contexts and multiple levels of analysis. Two projects contribute insights into how temporal focus regulates leaders' creative behavior in response to negative feedback (Fink, Richter, & Kim) and leads to distinct evaluations of new products (Luan & Kim). A third project investigates how temporal trajectories of entrepreneurial narratives influence evaluations for innovative ventures from a crowdsourcing audience (Lin, Yang, Garimella, & Shaw). The fourth piece contributes an understanding to how individuals remain creatively engaged when experiencing the temporal passage of time by virtue of cultivating so-called enduring dilemmas (Fisher & Ramakrishnan). With the help of this symposium, we aim to appeal to more scholars studying temporality and creativity to join forces and pilot new areas of interdisciplinary research -- pushing forward the frontiers of our knowledge on how psychological features of time affect creative outcomes and processes. * Team Leader Temporal Focus and Team Creativity: Self-regulation Theory * Presenter: Louisa Fink; Cambridge Judge Business School * Presenter: Andreas Wilhelm Richter; U. of Cambridge * Presenter: YeunJoon Kim; U. of Cambridge * The Roles of Temporal Focus and Novelty in Product Evaluations * Presenter: Yingyue Luan; Cambridge Judge Business School * Presenter: YeunJoon Kim; U. of Cambridge * Past, Present, and Future Focus in Entrepreneurial Narratives * Presenter: Yu-Wei Lin; U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign * Presenter: Shiyu Yang; U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign * Presenter: Aravinda Garimella; U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign * Presenter: Michael J. Shaw; U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign * Building Worlds: Enduring Dilemmas and the Process of Developing a Body of Creative Work * Presenter: Colin Muneo Fisher; UCL School of Management * Presenter: Poornika Anantha Ramakrishnan; Rotterdam School of Mgmt [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Morality has long been recognized as critical to leadership. However, compared to a leader's (im)moral conduct in the professional domain (i.e., professional morality), there has been relatively less attention paid to leadership morality in the personal domain (i.e., private morality); whether and how much lay people care about the (im)morality in a leader's personal life remains largely underexplored. Drawing upon a culturally attuned perspective on leadership, in six studies (N = 1668) we found that compared to the individualistic culture of North America, the collectivistic culture of East Asia tends to place greater emphasis on a leader's private morality. Using both measurement of mediation and controlled experiments, we identified people's conception of an organization (i.e., declarative cultural knowledge) and thinking style (i.e., procedural cultural knowledge) as the mechanisms underlying the differences. Specifically, we found that compared to the North Americans, East Asians are more likely to adopt a relational (vs. transactional) view of an organization and think more holistically (vs. analytically), which in turn lead to greater importance ascribed to leadership private morality. This paper extends prior theory by advancing our understandings of how cultural knowledge shapes people's lay theories of leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organizations perceived as authentic by relevant audiences reap many benefits, including more favorable brand appraisal and larger sales, thus making the pursuit of authenticity potentially lucrative. In contrast to this widely held positive view of authenticity, we develop a theoretical perspective that points to a potential dark side. Because authenticity demands adherence to tradition, conformity to a category and/or the fidelity to a point of origin, the desire to maintain authenticity may stifle the pursuit of creative ideas which often involve breaking with the status quo. Using both experiments and archival data, we found converging evidence that authenticity dampens creativity. Importantly, we also identified one context in which this effect could be reversed. When being creative is within the scope of what authenticity connotes, authenticity becomes a facilitator rather than an inhibitor of creativity. We discuss the implications of our results for organizations that desire to be both authentic and creative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why do people fail to find creativity? A new possibility is that to find creativity, evaluators need to change perspective - go through a process of searching for and identifying a new perspective for understanding the idea. Three studies provide evidence that people tend to evaluate ideas as more creative if they spontaneously experienced (Study 1) or were induced to experience (Study 2) a change in perspective. Further, if people were induced not to experience a change in perspective, ideas were experienced as less creative (Study 3). These studies offer a novel mechanism to help explain a longstanding, yet unresolved puzzle: why do people desire but reject creative ideas? Evaluators can fail to find creativity in the process of assessing ideas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Creativity is essential for organizational innovation, performance, and survival. Consequently, research interests in creativity and innovation have rapidly increased over the past decades. The bulk of these research efforts have been dedicated to studying the creative idea generation stage. Despite calls for research, however, studies on the succeeding creative idea evaluation stage remain scarce. Most studies that have been conducted demonstrate that idea evaluation is not an entirely rational cognitive process, which has critical implications for our ability to forecast groundbreaking innovations. Indeed, good ideas are often rejected and mediocre ideas selected, thereby disturbing the innovation process that is so crucial for organizational performance and survival. Accordingly, to ensure a smooth transition from creativity to innovation, it is crucial to more elaborately study the idea evaluation stage of creativity. By means of the presentations and discussion in this symposium, we aim to increase our understanding of idea evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]